Meeting of the PASO Council

On August 26, a meeting of the Council of the Chamber of Lawyers of the Samara Region took place.

YES. Taraborin was elected Vice-President of PASO. His competence includes overseeing the participation of lawyers in the system of subsidized legal aid. Members of the Council congratulated D.A. Taraborin with the award of the honorary title of Laureate of the National Prize in the field of advocacy and advocacy "LAW AND MUSES".

The Council satisfied the applications of two lawyers to change their membership in PASO to a bar association in another region, three to suspend the status of a lawyer and two to terminate it. The status of one more lawyer was terminated in connection with the entry into force of the court verdict for committing fraudulent actions against the principal - receiving 500,000 rubles for providing "assistance" to terminate the criminal prosecution. According to the changes in paragraph 3 of Art. 17 of the Law on the Bar and Advocate Activity in the Russian Federation, which entered into force on March 1, 2021, a person whose status was terminated due to the commission of an intentional crime by him is not entitled to be a representative in court, except in cases of his participation in the process as a legal representative, thus, a defender who has been deprived of his status will never be able to acquire the status of a lawyer again.

Four lawyers' offices were established and one lawyer's office was liquidated.

Six lawyers are included in the SJS system.

For more than a year, there has been an increased interest of lawyers to work as assigned. For 2020-21 dozens of lawyers who previously worked exclusively under agreements have applied to be included in the SJJ system.

However, starting to work in this segment, colleagues do not always carefully study the Standard for the participation of a defense lawyer in criminal proceedings and the disciplinary practice of PASO in this category of cases, continue to work according to the same principles as in cases under agreements. This leads to a significant increase in the number of complaints caused by non-compliance with the rules of defense by appointment, unfounded claims of lawyers mastering a new field of activity to the coordinators of the SJP Center and written requests for clarification to the PASO Council.

The increase in the number of complaints against the actions of “free” lawyers is associated with the expansion of the practice of recourse collection from convicted persons of the amounts paid to the lawyer from the budget.

In September, the PASO Council planned to start holding a series of training seminars on the specifics of the work of lawyers in cases by appointment. Such seminars will be regularly held not only in Samara, but also in the Togliatti branch of the Chamber and Syzran. The heads of lawyers' associations were recommended to ensure the attendance of at least one representative from each lawyer formation to these seminars.

The Council reviewed nine disciplinary proceedings.

Five of them were initiated by judges.

Two submissions from the courts were directed against the same lawyer Y. in connection with his failure to appear at the court sessions. At the same time, Y. did not appear in one process systematically over the course of five sessions. In another court, he also did not appear at the trial, thereby leaving the client without defense and exposing his colleague-lawyer G., with whom they defended the case, in jeopardy. By agreement between the lawyers, Y. was supposed to participate in the session that day, since G. was engaged in another process. Y.'s failure to appear led to the disruption of the hearing and to the court's claims against both lawyers. Yu did not deny these facts. His position boiled down to the fact that on the days of failure to appear at court sessions, he was in other proceedings under agreements, moreover, concluded later. The council was forced to explain to the lawyer the provisions of Art. 9 of the KPEA, according to which a lawyer is not entitled to accept assignments for the provision of legal assistance in an amount that is obviously greater than the lawyer is able to fulfill. This presupposes that the number of court cases in the proceedings of a lawyer should not be such that they systemically entail disruptions of court proceedings; a lawyer is not entitled to accept an assignment to take part in the case if another court session is scheduled for the same day.

Disciplinary proceedings against lawyer G. were terminated for lack of a disciplinary offense, contrary to the opinion of the Qualification Commission, which saw in his actions a violation of the rules governing advocacy. The opinions of the members of the Council were divided on the measure of responsibility for lawyer Yu. Not unanimously, but the Council still voted in favor of the softer option and issued comments on both disciplinary proceedings.

Another appeal of the court came in connection with the delay of the lawyer in the trial for 55 minutes - that is, in fact, failure to appear at the hearing. The lawyer apologized to the court and the participants in the process, in connection with which the proceedings were terminated due to their insignificance.

Warnings were issued to two lawyers. In one case - for non-payment of membership fees for six months. In the second - at the request of the judge.

Another proceeding was initiated on the basis of a fairly typical complaint by the client in connection with the fact that the lawyer did not appeal against the judicial act. At the same time, the receipt of refusal to appeal was not drawn up in writing, which subsequently gave the principal the basis to present claims against the defender. This is another vivid example of the need for a thorough study of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standard for the participation of a lawyer-defender in criminal proceedings. Considering that this was the first misconduct of a lawyer, the Council stopped the proceedings for insignificance.

Also, due to the insignificance, the proceedings against the lawyer were terminated, although she has vast experience in criminal proceedings on the basis of agreements, but has recently started working in the SJJ system. She accepted the demand for participation in the preliminary investigation stage. The coordinators informed the defense lawyer that a lawyer by agreement, who is currently on sick leave, is involved in the case. Due to the lack of experience in working on the requirements and ignorance of the provisions of the Standard for the participation of a defense lawyer in criminal proceedings, the lawyer, having contacted a sick colleague and having listened to her categorical disagreement with the replacement, notified the investigator of her refusal to participate in the investigative action, then, contacting the Center for Lawyer-Defender PASO, expressed violent indignation about “the lack of the right of the coordinators to accept such demands”, i. e. acted contrary to the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Standard. The Qualification Commission and the Council listened to the recordings of the negotiations and noted the high level of professional literacy and strict observance of the job description by the Head of the Center for SJP PASO A.A. Zotova, who patiently and repeatedly explained to the lawyer that the coordinators did not resolve issues of substantive and procedural law, but only performed distribution functions cases on appointments of bodies of inquiry, investigation and court. Legal issues are resolved by a lawyer who has accepted the requirement in the forms and methods established by law. By the time of the Council meeting, the lawyer still figured out these norms and provided appropriate explanations, which made it possible to recognize her actions as insignificant and terminate the disciplinary proceedings.

The last item on the agenda was the announcement of acknowledgments: six lawyers received acknowledgments.

PASO Press Center