Monopoly crooks

Yuri Pilipenko, managing partner of the Law firm "just", the First Vice-President of the Federal chamber of lawyers of the Russian Federation, Dun

Attorney monopoly of legal representation not deprive citizens of the possibility to defend itself: it will concern only those cases where necessary to guarantee the professional level representative. This will protect both clients from fraud, and the image of the legal community.

the Discussion about the necessity of introduction in Russia of the advocate's monopoly of legal representation is already several years. But the political will to implement this idea seems to have only now. Apparently, the government and the President support it and do not want to delay its practical realization. The government approved the state program «Justice» provides a completely transparent timing of reforms in the sphere of rendering qualified legal assistance. Completion of legislative development is scheduled for the end of 2013, their adoption of   November - December 2014. May God grant that this plan was realized.

the Arguments of the opponents

the Most irreconcilable opponents of the monopoly law - large public corporations such as «Gazprom», «Surgutneftegaz» or «Rosneft». But, in my opinion, they are wrong to react to the wrong message.

the fact that the Chairman of the Supreme arbitration court has its own vision of a monopoly law. This vision with our idea of weakly correlated and boils down to the fact that participate as representatives to the hearing of cases in the higher instances of arbitration courts should only people who have received a special license for representation in arbitration courts. As for the lawyers, they have access to legal representation receive automatically.

And here is our largest manufacturers fear that the higher instances of arbitration courts can be the representatives of their employees, which they raised, vypustili, and now have to hire lawyers and pay the money. And because our business giants prefer foreign lawyers hourly rates, and costs are coming considerable.

By obtaining regular employees of the commercial organizations of the status of lawyers problem is not solved. First of all because they are not psychologically ready for such term. In this case they will be forced to leave the state of the company, and for most of them this development is unacceptable. For them, a lawyer after work, say, «Gazprom» will seem as social class status. Here «Gazprom» and the salary is strong and regular, and there advocacy.

Well, who is a lawyer? A lawyer Reznik, but, for instance, a lawyer Pupkin. Resnicami they will not (and are extremely aware of this, but purkinie, of course, do not want to be. Yes and the qualification exam to officially, I think, many will fail. Therefore protest against monopoly law, claiming that it limits their right to legal representation.

One of the main arguments of our opponents - the conclusion of the constitutional court of Russia, which was formulated in the decree from 16 July 2004 № 15-p, which was recognized unconstitutional one of the norms of the code. According to this norm, the organization was able to choose a representative, not consisting in her state, only from among advocates. But our opponents forget to mention that the constitutional court is not prohibited by the lawyer monopoly in principle, but merely pointed out that it is not compatible with effective at that time regulation. Therefore, all legislative developments which are now in the framework of the forthcoming reform, take into account the position of the constitutional court.

protection Tool

However, the attorney monopoly of concern and the citizens - on the ships, where one of the parties is a natural person.

the Russian Constitution (article 48) stipulates the right of each qualified (this keyword!) legal assistance. But now the situation on the market of legal services, including in the sphere of legal representation (except for constitutional and criminal proceedings)is such as to provide legal assistance to Pets in fact, any person to whom the client has issued a power of attorney. This situation leads to the fact that too large a percentage of the principals faces unskilled legal assistance, and often simply fraud.

And this is a problem not only for the citizens, as can seem at first sight, but for the legal community, which in such a situation «spilling all bumps». After all, the people affected by the poor quality of legal services, from unfair representation in court, fraud (when, for example, from the audience took the money for participation in court, and then somewhere with them disappeared), the impression that I blame the lawyers. Note: not lawyers, not consultants, namely lawyers. Although approximately 90% of such cases lawyers nothing to do with it.

So that the attorney monopoly is a tool for the protection of both the principals and the image of lawyers, which will allow to remove from the litigation rogues with powers of attorney, often have neither a legal nor any other entity.

admission Standards and responsibility

One of the main aspects of the law of monopoly - introduction of common standards for admission to legal representation. In relation to lawyers and now there are quite clear and rigid pattern standards for admission to the occupation. And here is in respect of persons who are not advocates, but provide services as legal representatives, any standards do not exist!

With the introduction of the law of monopoly situation has qualitatively change: represent the interests of clients in court can only person with a legal background, with experience in the legal profession for at least two years and passed qualification tests.

a qualifying exam is difficult. It takes the qualification Commission of 13 people, seven of whom are lawyers, and six judges of the arbitration court, court of General jurisdiction, representatives of management of Ministry of justice in the Russian Federation where the examination. For clarity, I will give an example: in Moscow is eliminated almost every second applicant to acquire the status of lawyer.

For principals another advantage of a monopoly law is that if the person with the status of the lawyer have a complaint, we can always complain about the chamber and the chances that the lawyer or return the money (if there are no grounds to hold them), or in good faith will complete its work, are very great. Disciplinary liability of a lawyer is a really effective tool used to unscrupulous members of the legal community. Over the last ten years the status of the lawyer were deprived of over five thousand people, it is about 10% of the total number of lawyers.

Guarantee professional level

One of the main misconceptions about monopoly law boils down to opinion, that lawyers tend to monopolize the sphere of rendering of legal aid in General, and no one else, will not be entitled to represent interests of physical and legal persons.

But this is not so. Now in Russia, according to statistics, about 70 thousand lawyers. Even considering the fact that their number grows, it is obvious that they will not be able to meet all the needs of the market of legal services.

<…>

see read more