Law Factor: how to choose a lawyer

Program: Law Factor

Aired on 07.02.2013.

Alexander Seliutin: And thus the next Law Factor program is on air and I, its anchorman, Advocate Alexander Seliutin. Every Thursday, at 7 p.m., we speak on the topical issues of jurisprudence, on what is interesting and what preoccupies the citizens in this sphere, and we discuss the last week’s events or just topical issues of jurisprudence, and we also help people to find their way in the sophisticated world of jurisprudence.

The today’s program is one of such programs, and today we speak on whether there is law business in Russia, or how to choose a lawyer as far as the population is concerned, which is even simpler. Why does this subject come up? As always, I will begin by telling a short story. An acquaintance of mine contacted me some days ago and said: “Alexander, you did a great job helping my husband, and with quality. You have protected our business, which is currently functioning in an excellent way, my husband got to keep the business and did not go to jail. And that is great. And how my friend is involved in a story, please help her”. I ask: “What kind of story?” She says: “Some residential, utilities issues, something regarding a flat”. I say: “You know, that is not quite our specialization. Let her give us a call, by all means, but in all likelihood, this is not our specialization”. She actually calls me; I listen to her and understand that we do not do that, that we specialize in different things. So I say. And she goes: “But how?.. Wait, you are a lawyer, aren’t you? If you are a lawyer, then you know it all, and you work well. Please do this for me!” I say: “No, we will not do this, we are not specialists in that area, and we will certainly not do any work and charge any money where we are not specialists” – “Well, then, recommend someone to me”. I have over 15 years of experience, and I was in a stupor. Now whom would I recommend? I don’t have anybody to recommend. I don’t work with that category, and should something arise in my life in this area or other, how should I choose a lawyer? This is it. And I started searching the Internet on how to choose a lawyer, an advocate, and there I get a multitude of great variety of companies, organizations, some social institutions, which seem to assist in looking for a lawyer. And still I was not able to come to any conclusion. We will attempt to do so here and now. Our today’s guest is a much respected person in the legal sphere – Yury Sergeevich Pilipenko. Let me introduce you as Vice President of the Federal Chamber of Advocates of the Russian Federation. Good evening!

Yury Pilipenko: Yes, good evening. Thank you for such a good introduction. I’ll start with your first question on whether or not there is law business in Russia. The question is actually quite complicated, and no unambiguous answer is available. One may say that there is, and then again, one may say there is not. There is, for the following reason: one may earn well in Russia in the area of jurisprudence, of rendering legal services to the people, the ventures, the business. But legal assistance as such is not a business, is not an entrepreneurship. And our listeners should understand it well. They should understand well that there are 70 thousand advocates in our country, who are obligatorily affiliated with regional chambers, and beside them there is an unknowable – as yet – number of entrepreneurs or freelancers, who sometimes…

A.S.: Speaking of which, how many of those whom you call freelancers are there in Moscow? I am aware of your negative attitude towards those, who are not advocates. So, let us say, there are advocates and non-advocates. Approximately how many?

Y.P.: No one has counted. The Federal Chamber made several attempts to calculate the quantity of our colleagues.

A.S.: Well, in Moscow, at least.

Y.P.: We don’t know. I can tell that there are exactly 8 thousand advocates in Moscow.

A.S.: 8 thousand advocates.

Y.P.: We don’t know how many people there are, who are not members of the Bar, but still act as attorneys in courts and write up requests, statements of claims, and complaints for the citizens.

A.S.: Even those without legal education?

Y.P.: That is precisely the problem. Perhaps the listeners need explaining a very significant difference. Advocates, however good, professional or not so much, still meet a certain number of requirements. And those requirements are easily understandable. Legal education and professional experience are required in order to enter the Bar. No one will admit a recent graduate to the Bar. I must also say that it is not that simple to get into the Bar, in Moscow in particular. Very complicated qualification exams have to be passed.

A.S.: I can tell you that I came to the Bar after serving as a judge for a long time. I passed the required exams for that. There used to be a requirement that judges and DPhils pass no exams for the Bar. I am a DPhil AND a retired judge. I came to the Bar, but the law changed, and I still had to take the exam.

Y.P.: You felt it yourself?

Y.P.: What does it mean? It means that there are requirements; there is a qualified selection of qualified people. You have been selected, and justly so, in my opinion.

A.S.: Thank you very much!

Y.P.: This was done deliberately. The advocates have that disciplinary liability. A complaint against an advocate may be filed with the respective Chamber of Advocates, which can and should, perhaps, react in most cases.

A.S.: And the disciplinary practice does exist.

Y.P.: Yes, it does. And I should say that a huge number of advocates in Moscow and in the whole of our country have been stripped of the status during the last years for not being worthy of the advocate’s title. Precisely those persons, who are not advocates, but still try to earn their living at the market of some legal services, are, in principle, exempt from anything. And there are worthy people among them – I would not say that they are all unprofessional, no.

A.S.: There is a question: do they try to or do they actually earn their living? I can say that among the law firms there are some that employ non-advocates, and their profits are significant, substantial, often exceeding that of the advocates’ associations.

Y.P.: Now I’d like to dismiss some doubts regarding the fact that there are some law firms, which earn significant and substantial funds and are not related to the Bar in any way. All major actors of our country’s legal market are well known. All of them are connected with the Bar in some way or other. Some are organized as an advocates’ bureau, some – as a bar association, and limited liability companies exist alongside them. But serious people, who are known in the sphere of legal assistance to business, are mostly connected with the Bar. It is probably what you have talked about – the people, who try to render services in the utilities’ sphere. There are many people there, who are not advocates, but who know how to accomplish things. I would like to point out once again that there are worthy people there, but they are outnumbered. And we should count on splendid, good, decent persons and place our bids with the institutions. The Bar is an institution.

A.S.: An institution. Right. And still, suppose someone has a question, of the simplest everyday kind, related to, I don’t know, contesting a transaction – not utilities, contesting a transaction. And where that person should begin? Visit the district consultation, or check the Internet, or ask his acquaintances, etc. I can say that asking acquaintances does not always work. Even I, with 15 years of experience in the sphere, could not think of the specialist she needed at that moment, since the area was completely different: business protection etc. And the question is: the first steps – just what are those?

Y.P.: There is no universal rule. While you were asking the question, I started thinking and asking myself, what would I do to find an advocate for myself, should I ever need one. And there are actually several ways to do that. First of all, one should understand that finding a good advocate, a specialist in a certain area, is like finding a good doctor. And there are no general approaches at all.

A.S.: Until you get something cut off, you would not understand if the specialist is adequate or…

Y.P.: Sometimes it is so, so it is. At times, people are forced to change several advocates before they find the one that will suit them in general as defender. The first tour is, of course, a walking tour. Who does not know how, who isn’t on friendly terms with the Internet, should be on friendly terms with his own legs. Taking a walk around Moscow, such person may, in particular, find announcements, billboards: “advocates’ bureau”, “legal services rendered”, sometimes even stenciled on the asphalt “arbitration issues resolved” with a telephone number. This is also an approximate way to look for an advocate for oneself.

A.S.: By the way, is there any correlation? I have the idea; it is for the sake of better understanding of the listeners. An inscription on the asphalt, on a fence, on a billboard.

Y.P.: I would advise against looking for an advocate at the asphalt, inspiring as it would seem.

A.S.: Low as it would seem.

Y.P.: I would immediately say that this is low and unsafe, at least. The second way to look for an advocate is the Internet, of course. Just type “advocate”, “legal services”. Internet, Yandex, Google will provide you with any number of possible variants.

A.S.: And here another question arises, which might… We all know the leader. I am also a leader, and I am familiar with promoting in Google, Yandex etc. And we all realize that it is very simple to move in the Direct, or Yandex, or Google, using the word “advocate”. You assign a budget to this and thus ensure the first place in the search. But this is no guarantee that you render the best legal services of all.

Y.P.: There can be no guarantees. A good advocate needs experience to find. I understand that a person, who does business in our country, had to face law-enforcing and tax systems etc. some 15 times during the last 20 years for different reasons that we all are aware of. If that person has no lawyers among the staff, who could resolve all business-related problems that arise, he would be forced to find himself an advocate at some point during those 20 years. Let us suppose there is a new person, who is just facing that problem for the very first time, and get back to Yandex and Google. This is experience. The third way, by the way, is approximately the same as with the doctors, and that is asking the acquaintances, friends and colleagues for a good advocate that actually helps. The third way is probably the fastest, but still not guaranteed. Well, who has ever guaranteed us quick happiness in this life?

A.S.: You know, it is like refurbishment: you want to refurbish your flat, you search the Web without knowing, who is good, and who is not; you ask the neighbors, who say: “Oh, I have some great guys, here, have a look”. I have faced such problem myself. I looked at the work they did for my neighbors, it seemed all right – well, all right then, Zhenya, we’ll take it! So we take it, we do the refurbishment. And consequently a wall ruptures here, something falls off there, etc. And the neighbors are just fine with that. Exactly the same may happen with the advocate, who may be okay for someone… What is good for a German kills a Russian.

Y.P.: And again, experience, tries, life, facing problems, resolving problems gets you your advocate. You may get lucky instantly, immediately. You Google up a person, you visit that person and stay with that person for 10 years, even if not immediately. Such is life.

A.S.: By the way, there is an interesting proverb or opinion among the lawyers regarding the so-called chemistry, if you get what I mean.

Y.P.: Yes, of course!

A.S.: Just so that the listeners would understand the topic too. You may visit one, two, three, four advocates, and each time they would be wrong, wrong, wrong, and then… Maybe he is no specialist, as in this case, but there is a wish that he be in charge, well, let him. Even if he is no specialist, let him bring someone in but remain in charge. And that is chemistry. Just how important is it to understand that while choosing? Whom do we choose: a professional or when that love chemistry appears?

Y.P.: Chemistry… I understand what you are talking about. It seems to me that love chemistry will overwhelm everything: the notion of professionalism and all. Because it’s chemistry. I have to say that, in the course of many years of my experience, I have seen many situations when certain relationship, a bit more warm than there should be between an advocate and his principal, arose between the advocate and his client, his principal. This can’t be avoided. Sooner or later, this happens to each advocate, when a client comes, with whom one wants to be friends too. But there is danger there, because friendship starts prevailing over the business relations. And sooner or later, I can give you a dozen cases, the friendship between client and advocate leads to attrition. I am not aware of any other case. The border is crossed. I would advise our listeners, even when you find your advocate and get that chemistry, and you want to be friends, to visit each other, try to not cross the border. Friendship is friendship, but money is money. We did not invent this, but rather life shows this is so.

A.S.: There is an opinion among the lawyers, or rather a term “but you are a lawyer” – have you heard? I actually have an entire printed page of “but you are a lawyer – explain”, “but you are a lawyer – do this for free”, “but you are a lawyer – you can do this easily”, “big deal – you are a lawyer after all”. Take me, for instance: over a half of a working day consists of telephone calls. One call, two, three, twenty five calls, etc., one call takes five minutes, another one takes another five minutes, the tenth call also takes five minutes – all this makes up for an hour, two, three hours of free work time, which I don’t get paid for. And I have to summarize it somehow at the end of the day, and at the end of the month too. I actually receive salary, even though I am the head, but the financial director draws my payroll. He does this on the basis of my actual work. And those free telephone calls, many of which are from friends, are the stumbling block: if you worked 12 hours per day but summarized only 5, you get no salary at the end of the month. Yes, the problem exists, I fully agree with you. But I have this question: chemistry is chemistry, but sometimes it happens so that that very chemistry may turn out to be the most important thing in the legal profession or in the relationship with a client, and that a chemist, not a legal professional, will be the most successful advocate and lawyer.

Y.P.: Such is life. I know that some of my famous colleagues actually attract their clients by their ability to produce that chemistry cloud around them. Moreover, I know that their attempts to help people frequently end in fiasco. But that does not make them any less attractive. The people still stand in line to get to them. There are people who want to get to this or that person, I will not call any names. But such is life, Such is life.

A.S.: We imagine the market, yes. It is very narrow in Moscow. We understand the what and where, even what cases are mentioned, and we often face those things ourselves.

Y.P.: I’ll say honestly. When I was beginning my career as an advocate, I met an outstanding person, whom I consider my mentor. His surname is quite common, I can freely tell it – its Yury Ivanov. From the very start he, so to speak, astounded me, fresh from the university, by that he dealt with the laws very easily. It seemed to me that every time he opened the Penal Code or the Penal Procedural Code, he did so for the first time in life. I got so amazed, and he had some 20 or 30 years of experience by the time we met. But he knew how to communicate with people, oh yes he did! How he constructed combinations, which would allow him to reach this or that ruling! I’ll tell a secret, 20 years or more have passed after all…

A.S.: T he limitation period has expired.

Y.P.: The limitation period has expired, but he managed to get to his clients’ cells in Matrosskaya Tishina prison by previously organizing a chess championship with the guards. But that was back in the 1990ies, it is no longer possible. In 1993, stranger things were possible. And his ability to attach people to himself, to put them into the position he needed has always been astounding. And he was a brilliant advocate. Why “was”? He still is.

A.S.: A God’s gift.

Y.P.: Yes, this is God’s gift. You gave the most correct definition - God’s gift, which can never be mistaken for scrambled eggs.

A.S.: Of course, in this case it looks like the person should decide for himself. What would he rather have: professionalism or mental comfort? The two may combine in a single person – an advocate or a lawyer. I will use these terms, since we are speaking not about the role of the Bar or non-advocates’ community in Moscow or Russia, but how to choose a lawyer for a certain person. The two things may combine, and the person may accept this for himself. Or – yes, we pay a lot of money because this very person looks attractive to us. And he would, in all probability, find the one, who will do the work for him well, since the one, who does the job, simply does not have that chemistry.

Y.P.: Charisma.

A.S.: He may have no charisma, but I feel myself comfortable with him, sitting down and discussing our plans with him. And I feel myself important. And here comes another interesting question: the issue of finances, of payment is as important as charisma and professionalism. And how do we choose here, what can you say on the level of the remuneration? More expensive means better, cheaper means worse. Or vice versa, no matter. What does it depend on and how to ascertain it?

Y.P.: Praise Lord, the market of legal services, including advocate services, is not excessively regulated in our country. It has no fixed tariffs and…

A.S.: By the way, praise Lord for that or not? I know that in Germany, for instance, this sphere has much regulation.

Y.P.: Praise Lord, because you surely don’t know anything about the German Bar. Admit it, you don’t know much.

A.S.: Yes. I am all ears.

Y.P.: German firms are practically absent at the global market.

A.S.: Oh, that, that’s right, yes.

Y.P.: And the way their respective area is structured, including the tariffs, leads to the non-existence of large actors. And the stock keeps its eye on the market, because there is freedom in this sense. And, praise Lord, we here have freedom too. It is hard to say whether expensive is good or not. First, one should keep in mind that many of self-respecting companies practice the so-called hourly tariffs. The tariff depends on the person’s experience, length of service, cases won, self-appraisal, after all. And it may differ. There are tariffs fixed at 50 USD per hour, and there are 500 USD per hour. There is another system, which you may find on the Web again, the Moscow Bar Association informs that here or there a consultation costs upwards from 2000 roubles. Such approach also exists. There is no unified policy. Advocates are expensive.

People should understand that advocates have no other way to earn their living, to feed their families and themselves, besides selling, offering in exchange for money their skills, their knowledge, their experience, their brains. So one should not wonder at all that advocates charge some money – sometimes much, other times not so much – because they have no other source of income. They have no budget and receive no funds from elsewhere. They only get what they earn, actually. So if an advocate requests you to pay some significant amount, do not be offended.

A.S.: And how do advocates and lawyers themselves calculate their value?

Y.P.: You know, let us consider the topical problem of attracting advocates’ companies, law firms to rendering services by the state monopolies. They obligatorily have tenders, biddings, and all that amounts to, pardon my view, total nonsense. Say, 5 companies are invited to take part in a project. 5 companies should draw up 2-3 tomes of documents, almost all original ones, and 10 people of your company are busy with preparing that tender documentation. After that, the price factor kicks in, gains in importance, and then suddenly a company appears that has no experience, no this, no that. We know that their results in courts and elsewhere are quite poor. But that company is the lowest bidder, and it wins sometimes. So in my opinion, this tender system of choosing the external counsel is so bureaucratized that it loses its function, for which it was created – I think, to curtail corruption, which everyone in our country is fighting against. Well, we are toiling with those bidding documents for 3,5 years at least. As I see it, that had no effect on corruption: there was little of it, and probably remains as little.

A.S.: Thank you, Yury Sergeevich. We have said that we are mostly speaking about Moscow advocates, and most our listeners are also in Moscow, and we actually describe the situation in Moscow. Most advocates in Moscow charge an hourly rate. And we have stopped at that it is not known, how the advocates themselves calculate that rate. I have seen or heard from someone many times how one comes to an advocate, and the advocate says: “My rate is, say, 500 USD per hour”, and the man says that it is a bit too expensive for him, and the advocate goes: “Then 100”.

Y.P.: This does happen.

A.S.: So how? Do you believe there is some system? I know my system of calculations, and my hourly rate is made up quite simply. There is a formula, the financial director calculates it – he simply takes all profits, all expenses, divides them, does the computing, and gets the resulting rate for a partner, a lawyer, a junior lawyer etc. And there are obligations that they just can’t get away from, the daily, monthly routine work etc., or there will be no funds to pay salaries. You communicate more with advocates, with lawyers, so you most likely know, what is the system of fixing the rate, how do they define and how do they inform it to the client? And the most important – how should the client react to this or that rate, to this or that honorary, I don’t know, success fee, or remuneration for the work etc.?

Y.P.: I think it all depends on the nature of the case. Let us take a project in the sphere of civil law, corporate relations. The international practice in this sense is common knowledge – I would think that any businessman should understand that, if he is going to invest money in anything, much money or not so much money, he must act on the premises that a certain amount would have to go to the counsel: economic consultants, legal counsel. This cannot be avoided.

A.S.: You are speaking of the whole world. Let us get closer to Russia.

Y.P.: As I understand, the business in the whole world has always reserved for attracting consultants to implement the project: a billion – some million then, etc. Of course, 10% in Russia is complicated. You see, I sometimes used to have cases, when I gained 50% of the awarded amount. Such cases happen, albeit rarely, and are dictated by the nature of the case: the case seemed hopeless, even more so that five advocates or five bar associations had taken up the case before me and failed. And the principal, driven to desperation, says: “If you resolve this, you get half of the amount as the honorary”. Well, I’ve found a way to resolve that. Are 50% a lot or a little? Actually, it was quite an amount of money. And sometimes they say that one per cent is enough for you, and yes, sometimes it is enough. Frankly speaking, I have no landmarks, criteria on how this or that advocate should calculate the price of his services.

Still, each advocate knows his worth, the lowest and the highest boundaries of his worth. Naturally, he will always request the highest. Such clients or potential clients as a state monopoly, which we are currently talking about, declare the bidding for the lowest price. As a rule, the one, who prepared for that bidding, or the lowest bidder win – and not always the most professional and the most efficient consultant.

A.S.: Are you interested in such projects?

Y.P.: Yes. There was a time, when we – my company, where I am managing partner, a law firm – decided to not do this. It seemed too difficult and inefficient, a waste of time. But I should say that I feel that this business, this field, has shrunk like shagreen in Russia. So one has to pay attention to such projects too, which cause some confusion at first: you are put in a situation of a test subject, for a criterion, which you don’t understand – why the lowest bid should be the main criterion. That’s why we participate in this. Still, it feels nice being a counsel to Rosneft, to Gazprom.

A.S.: Right. And it seems to me that you become a sort of an internal department, when you are told what to do. And, as you know, advocacy requires not some but complete independence – the only thing you depend on is the client’s will. When you integrate into such system, it is not clear, who your client is, and you are so much regulated by some internal instructions that you feel you are a screw of this machine and not an advocate. Don’t you feel the same?

Y.P.: Such problem exists. You have identified it correctly. Here the advocate should try to compromise between the freedom of his existence, his profession, his independence, to keep it in any event, and the necessity to obey the instructions – to be a semi-department in a very large company.

A.S.; by the way, here is another one. Just came to my mind: isn’t there a serious difference in the criteria between non-advocates and advocates regarding the principle, shall we say, of adherence to freedom. You know how they say: lawyers are like cats, can’t be directed. I feel that this rather concerns advocates than those lawyers, who work in vertically structured firms. What is your opinion? Are advocates more freedom-loving than lawyers in general, in principle, or not?

Y.P.: The professional advocacy predetermines that love for freedom, because an advocate, pursuant to the law, is an independent counsel of legal matters. And he should confirm that independence, and exercise that independence daily – these are the origins of the love for freedom. Of course, everyone can be managed. Management instruments are many. But an advocate, if he wants to feel like an advocate, should retain a degree of independence.

A.S.: Another issue then. It’s no secret that there are projects, where it is useful to bring several specialists and to create a team headed, perhaps, by a partner, a managing partner, a senior lawyer etc. Whereas the autonomous advocate, the freedom-loving advocate, remains an artisan, so to speak, who is unable to work on large, significant projects, where teamwork and managing teams are required. Isn’t this a problem?

Y.P.: It depends on everyone’s plans for their own lives. Some people are indeed not inclined to participate in global projects, to generate them, to build teams, to resolve significant large-scale tasks.

A.S.: But then the advocate’s status is just some attachment, is it not?

Y.P.: In a sense, it is.

A.S.: Not a state of mind, perhaps, which the profession, in my opinion, requires.

Y.P.: In the sense that this is a necessary attribute – the advocate must remain an independent person and be free within his business hours etc., the means he chooses – less submission, less reporting. Maybe this is attachment, but an attachment that is so very necessary. And there are people, who do not want all those large-scales, who know how to resolve a utilities problem: for example, how to contest bills filed by SCDs. And this is where they earn their money, needing no teams and knowing they will have their life bread ensured. There is also need for such people. If everyone actually goes into global business and starts creating large and big corporations, where one can’t make a step in without knocking five times and having called one week prior, people will remain outside the sphere of legal assistance. Therefore, there is also need for those, who do their concrete job at their own place without any globalism. For most our listeners, for the residents of Moscow, such people may be even more important than our large-scale colleagues, who operate with millions.

A.S.: Another question then. Summing up, where should an ordinary person living in Moscow and having some fixed income of this size or that go – to a lawyer or to an advocate? Suppose both are professionals. Let us take the ideal case. We have said that there are mediocre advocates as well as lawyers, and both can be excellent. So, supposing that both are qualified, handsome, great guys – should such ordinary person go an individual artisan, to whom, in my opinion, advocates belong, because the very Law on the Bar says so.

Y.P.: Is based on the autonomy principle.

A.S.: Yes. An advocate is an independent counsel, and wherever he works, excluding, to a degree, advocates’ bureaus, he is always still an autonomous unit. It is just that in a bureau, the managing partner may give some orders or instruct to take up or not a case, to entrust you with the case or not. Otherwise, wherever the advocate works, he always remains an autonomous unit. The other way is to go to a law firm: when you come, you are received by the director, a section head talks to you, then says: look how great our firm is, 200 people, we will pounce on your utilities bill and 10 men will work on it – the client goes like, wow! I am exaggerating, of course. Let us take raidership. What is raiding of a venture for a person? Oh, they are taking away my venture. He does not know what instruments he needs to put up resistance. Often one advocate is enough: he knows where to file a complaint, whom to contact, what program to stage, what publication to make, to complain against whom – and the problem is solved. And filed two statements of claim. Or it might be that 10 people cannot cope with the case. But the person does not see all this, and he needs to make a decision, where to go – to that one advocate or to a law firm. You know, sometimes you see the following happen: the person thinks – I have a business, it needs to be serviced, one man can hardly handle it, I think, so I will not go to an advocate, but a law firm will certainly cope.

Y.P.: I disagree with you, Alexander. Let me correct your thinking a bit. I began by telling that the law market, or the market of legal assistance, formed in Moscow, in particular, quite long ago. Everyone knows the 10 or 15 companies, 20 tops, real actors, who are able to render qualified large-scale legal services. All those actors, as I call them, are connected with the Bar. They consist of advocates either in whole or in part. Therefore, the problem should be examined from a different viewpoint. Honestly, I personally am not aware of a single law firm in Moscow that would not be connected with the Bar and would have any significance, hold any weight. I apologize if there are small companies unbeknownst to me.

A.S.: It seems to me too that there are none.

Y.P.: We should look at the problem from a slightly different angle. Who is it better to deal with? It is better to deal with your own people. If you have none or several of them, whom is it better to choose – the advocate or another person? I say the advocate. I will briefly explain the reasons. The advocate, being an autonomous entrepreneur, has an institutional difference: the advocate has qualified legal education, he absolutely has professional experience from before coming to the Bar, like you have just told about yourself – the advocate has taken serious qualification exams, the law obliges the advocate to constantly improve his qualification. It would not seem such a big deal, but it is very important in our situation, when the State Duma adopts many laws, sometimes amends old ones, makes new ones – this is necessary. The advocate is subject to the Code of Professional Ethics. I do not mean to say that all advocates are saints. There are different advocates; they are human, after all. But the advocate is subject to the Code of Professional Ethics, which says that the advocate should be a model, to some extent, that he should take morality into consideration, which lays some ethical standards etc. And the most important thing is the disciplinary liability. It is quite complex: warnings, admonitions, disbarment.

A.S.: I would not say that that is the most important thing.

Y.P.: Still, it exists.

A.S.: You are speaking so fine, and I can’t help smiling. Why? Because of what you say, I enjoy being an advocate.

Y.P.: But being an advocate is respectable.

A.S.: You know, yesterday I… Permit me to boast. I am in proceedings; I represent two defendants in a district court of Moscow. The attorney of the claimant is on the other side, not an advocate in all probability. Here I am speaking, delivering my speech, and he stands up and starts interrupting. And how I enjoyed it – and when you say it, I enjoy that still more – when the judge says to him: “Who are you anyway? Are you an advocate?” He hesitated. “Well then, don’t interrupt the advocate, when he is speaking”. I felt myself taller. I admit it, I like being an advocate. And I would like to state that the profession is very respectable, especially nowadays. The new generation has been brought up on the American films, and there the advocate’s profession is so much…

Y.P.: An advocate – it sounds proudly. A very important matter is on the agenda – the advocate’s monopoly is urgently necessary in the country, for the representation in courts at least. I am very hopeful that this problem will be solved within the year. And in this connection, the question, where to take one’s court case – to an advocate or to an individual entrepreneur operating on the legal services market, will be dismissed. The answer will be: obviously, one should opt for the advocate. Why? I have already explained: for the reason of the institutional difference. This is very important.

A.S.: Yury Sergeevich, one more important question remains – important for the Moscow region, at least. It is complex. We started with small cases, with common and particular problems, and have been gradually widening the scale and passing to a new stage of our discussion. You said that we here in Moscow have global-size, large law firms. Yes, I agree with that. And I still cannot drop the question of foreign law firms. Business in Moscow is large, federal-level, and it often employs the services of foreign law firms, or at least considers the choice between them and a Russian law firm. And often the competition advantages in one area are with the foreigners, and in the other – with the Russian forms. I’ll put it this neutral way for now. I know both sides, but I would like to listen to what you have to say on this subject.

Y.P.: This is a very serious question indeed. My opinion on the problem has many facets. Facet one: foreign law firms came to our market a long enough time ago, some 20 years ago. They followed the rule that the advocate always follows his client. Foreign business came to Russia and it was followed by Baker&McKenzie, and other internationally known brands of law firms.

A.S.: When we knew nothing.

Y.P.: And we at that point were creating law cooperatives and assisting business – such as there was – by ourselves. Facet two: foreign law business cannot be banned in our country. Nobody sets such task, even less now, when we became members of the WTO. And this starts creating new features, nuances and problems arise. But there are objective reasons, why foreign companies feel themselves comfortably and at ease in our country. First – Russian business has lately been heading for foreign jurisdictions. Not because life is good, this phenomenon too has objective reasons – the nature of our Civil Code, the peculiarities of our judicial system. That is why many businessmen, not only the notorious Berezovsky, opt for London to resolve their corporate disputes. Other, much less notable businessmen also prefer foreign jurisdictions. And of course, this is the reason why a Russian advocate is hardly able to render services in London as successfully as an English one. One circumstance in particular confuses me here. The most important thing that I wanted to say, maybe even with some accusation. A striking practice has formed: the Government of the Russian Federation hires as its official counsel a foreign law company. Orders to that effect are issued every year. The Ministry of Finance’s law company is foreign. Here is the latest example: today I have been at a trial, where my client argued against the Government of Moscow. I may ask you a question: how do you think, who represented the interests of the city of Moscow?

A.S.: I fear that the answer is “a foreign law firm”.

Y.P.: Exactly. The Government of the city of Moscow, in a judicial dispute with the application of Russian law, on the subject of Russian immovable property, in the center of Moscow, is represented by White&Case – a foreign law company.

A.S.: But the advocate, was he Russian, that is – with the Russian status?

Y.P.: The people are all Slavs.

A.S.: And the status is Russian?

Y.P.: Yes, absolutely.

A.S.: Now this is interesting. How does this happen? Just so that people would understand. It is interesting, we come to White&Case, and suddenly the man is Russian, the advocate is Russian. But we’ve come to a foreign firm, why Russians? I myself understand this; please explain this to our listeners.

Y.P.: This is understandable. It is quite difficult to go to our courts, even possessing such knowledge of the Russian language as an Englishman may acquire after 20 years of life here. Therefore, it is of course much simpler to hire, to invite a Russian lawyer, a Russian citizen, who will speak in court as the attorney of the foreign company. This is a long-standing practice; the locals are recruited into the colonizing countries’ companies everywhere. Unfortunately, this practice exists in our country. This is much lamentable. I cannot fathom the motives of the Government of Moscow that invites a foreign company, whose business interests lie outside our country, to represent it in a court dispute over Russian real estate under Russian law. Talk about patriotism.

A.S.: A very interesting moment, perhaps an exclusive by the Moscow Government. Some time ago there were publications about the Supreme Court too, something about the purchase of an automobile for over 12 million roubles. Not a Russian one, certainly. The idea was discarded afterwards.

Y.P.: Yes, praise God. The automobiles… I understand very well that there are no automobiles in our country – yet - like those produced by Mercedes, lamentably. But such lawyers as exist in our country, such advocates, do not exist anywhere else in the world. The best.

A.S.: This tradition is perhaps interesting. Perhaps we should adopt it. Perhaps the Government of Moscow wants, in accordance with foreign traditions, supply us with love, care and kindness, being as we are citizens of this country.

Y.P.: I don’t understand them. I sincerely hope that they mean very well, when choosing that company. But I don’t understand them.

A.S.: Thank you very much for such an interesting conversation. I hope that we have helped our listeners to make some progress in the matter of choosing their personal lawyer, their advocate. God give you that right person, who would have a spiritual bond with you as well as give qualified legal assistance for your entire life, so that you would feel calm and safe, and so that all the good things surround you, and all the bad things stay someplace away from you. This was the “Law Factor” program and its anchorman, advocate Alexander Seliutin. See you on air and thank you.

Y.P.: Thank you, Alexander.