Openness of the Bar: limits of the allowed

The Bar along with the professional journalists are at the frontline of the struggle against infinite lawlessness and the imperfections of the judicial system. Such was the conclusion of the experts, who discussed the problem of honest and objective communication of the facts by the mass media. A round table “Openness of the Bar: limits of the allowed” was held on December 20 within the framework of the finals of the “Right to Know” competition, where the representatives of the federal and regional mass media together with the advocates discussed topical issues of the advocates’ and their clients’ information security, the secrets of preparation of publications, and recalled the case of the former vice-president of YUKOS.

When the journalist says that “we are at a market, there is no time for writing much and thoughtfully, we have to deliver materials as fast as possible” and the like, he bends his independence to the “golden calf” and becomes a “conveyor slave”. Yury Pilipenko, Managing Partner of the Law Firm "YUST", says this is hardly better than being a slave to conscience and honesty. He called upon the journalists and advocates alike to be more careful when refusing comments or giving them in an active and unintelligible way.

Georgy Ramazashvili, the winner of the Right to Know competition in the nomination “Labyrinths of Ethics” supported the advocates, who are often reluctant to speak to journalists. As a historian, he also had to supply information to the mass media, only to discover later that the journalists accentuate points in a different way, have a different view on the importance of certain pieces of information, present the expert’s words not as he gave them, but rather as they perceived them. G.Ramazashvili complained: “One has to explain himself to a colleague afterwards that he meant some other thing”. He believes that the reserve showed by the advocates and their clients is caused by that and is the advocates’ problem only partially. He explained: “The advocates are rather the hostages of the situation”. As G.Ramazashvili sees it, the problem is caused by, for example, that the management of the editorial offices prefers inexperienced specialists – “the young ones are easier to command, they ask fewer questions” – as well as the entertaining and operative way the materials are offered to the public. According to the participant of the discussion, the advocates’ reticence makes the editorial offices to charge more prepared people with talking to them and visiting the court hearings. So he suggests that the advocates should not “shun the conversations with the editors” and should rather ask the latter to send to the courts only such persons as will not think of the task as a one-time charge, but will rather take up the matter professionally and will not be afraid to go into detail. There is a risk that the journalist, charmed by the advocate, will not be able to know, when the latter uses unjustified generalizations, omits crucial details etc. In other words, the expert believes that the journalist risks becoming a mere PR agent. In order to avoid this, an additional preparation of the publication is required, including talking to independent experts.

The causes for the advocates’ reticence

Alexander Krokhmaliuk, Spokesman of the FCA of Russia, Editor-in-Chief of the Novaya Advokatskaya Gazeta (New Advocate’s Newspaper). In his welcoming speech, he told those present that the idea of the competition and discussion belonged to the Law Firm "YUST" and gained the immediate support from the FCA of Russia and the Guild of the Court Reporters. Gennady Sharov, Vice-President of the FCA of Russia, pointed out that the journalist and legal professions had much in common, for example – the possibility to evaluate an occurrence from different points of view. The members of both professions are connected with the exercise of the right to information, but it is the mass media, not the Bar, which is recognized as the fourth power. Gennady Sharov reminded that in 2010 the Council of the FCA of Russia approved the РRecommendations for the advocates on interaction with the mass media.

Elena Lvova, a known Advocate, Head of Criminal Law Practice of the Law Firm "YUST", noted that she personally took her word very seriously. And when a lawyer “gets hold of the microphone”, his most important task is to do no harm. E.Lvova gave an example: the cause célèbre of Vasily Alexanyan, the mortally ill former vice-president of YUKOS. She explained that the defense had had to conceal the diagnosis and many details of the case from the public and the mass media. She recounted: “The journalists did not like talking to me, as it is hard for me to give information by doses. When the prosecutor publicly announced that Alexanyan had AIDS, only then we were able to declare anything”. But as soon as the advocate starts speaking in a sharp manner, in fact – describing the things as they are, he risks being brought to criminal liability. She explained: “Those who work and make declarations on such cases should keep this in mind. I am very careful in my dealings with the mass media, and only in that plane, in which I believe the information is of general access”. Elena Lvova admitted that she respected those journalists, who collect the facts. And if the advocate is able to help the journalist to acquire the facts, which are to be announced in mass media, the advocate undoubtedly should cooperate and assist. She later specified that it was important for a journalist to distinguish between a fact and an opinion and to check the information he republished at the source.

Evgeny Chernousov, Advocate of the Chamber of Advocates of the city of Moscow, remarked that he supported the colleague and criticized the judicial-themed TV shows, which were misleading for the society.

Know-how of the journalist profession

Olga Pleshanova, Editor-in-Chief of Zakon.RU portal, called the attention of those present to the fact that the journalists nowadays visit the court session by themselves, listen to the speeches of both the case participants and advocates, so that the advocates’ commentaries over the phone are not always crucial. Another situation arises, when the note is being written at an early stage of the case, for example, when the conflict has just arisen or the claim has just been filed, and the advocates of parties are known. In that case, it is impossible to listen to the advocate in person: the only thing left to be done is to call him for an expert’s commentary. But the journalist is responded with “let’s wait for the court ruling” or “for the ruling’s entry into force”. O.Pleshanova explains that, in that manner, the advocates appear to cooperate, but many “buts” arise. If no commentary on the merits is provided, the standards kick in, according to which the journalist must describe the plot of the case and give the opinions of the conflict’s parties. She is also convinced that the journalist may not take any parts. Moreover, the formal approach option is also available: to “tick off” that “the advocate was spoken to, two words were written”. But from the point of view of trust in the law enforcement system, legal culture, from the viewpoint of court practice and the Bar prestige, this cannot be fully accepted, the Editor-in-Chief of Zakon.RU concludes.

Olga Pleshanova pointed out that the journalists of professional editorial offices are specialized, since the information field is initially split into “plots” to be worked by separate journalists. The problem of professional mass media stands, for example, with the personnel training, the journalists’ workload, when sometimes as little as an hour is available for the preparation of a material. In her view, the advocates should understand that professional journalism is an information business: the journalist has to capture the news, look at it from different angles, evaluate and perceive it, learn the opinions of all parties to the conflict, for instance etc. The “direct speech” is required from the advocates, their position in the form of a commentary. O.Pleshanova is sure that if the journalist writes the story exactly as it is told by the advocate, it will not conform to the rules and standards of professional journalism. She concluded: “The advocates may and should control the authenticity of their comments precisely in that direct speech as goes into print”.

Konstantin Katanyan, a Foreman of the Guild of Court Reporters, explained that the above-mentioned “division of labour exists in the editorial offices one day, and someone falls ill on the other day, and the person specializing in oil is sent to a court”. According to the Foreman, one does not have to be an archive specialist if a case on archives is being heard in court: ”One has to be a professional journalist, and contact an archive specialist”. He added that a court reporter cannot specialize in everything.

Dmitry Kizianov, the winner of the Right to Know competition in the nomination “Human and Power”, accentuated the “journalist’s sacred right to be a dilettante writing for dilettantes and entitled to endlessly simplify”. He is of the opinion that a word-for-word citation of the court ruling will hardly promote the legal awareness: “The colleagues will not understand, and the newspaper will go bankrupt”. He also noted that a district or a regional newspaper reporter cannot always afford to quickly arrange a needed expert.

D.Kizianov’s ideas were elaborated by Olga Sukinova, the winner of the Right to Know competition in the nomination “To protect a person”. She reminded of such an important factor as the editorial policy to attract a large number of readers, and that such policy at times is reduced to the drive to make the material more “tabloid”, more scandalous, provocative etc. And financial stimulation of the journalist – author of the respective article frequently depends on the achievement of the goals set by the editorial office.

On the protection of the common man’s interests

Evgeny Chernousov, a known Moscow advocate, went on with the conversation and informed that Russia was “at the frontline of the struggle against infinite lawlessness and the imperfections of the judicial system”. And nowadays there are cases, when it is impossible to initiate a criminal case and to bring the responsible ones to liability without the mass media. He shared two episodes from his practice, when newspaper publications made the progress of criminal cases possible. He is convinced that if the advocate refuses an interview without good cause, refuses to lay out his position, he likely does not understand that in that way the mass media will be able to communicate his position, his version of the events to the readers and spectators.

Ivan Spleptsov, Editor-in-Chief of Pravo.RU news portal, declared that “we do not aim at protecting someone’s interests, our goal is to tell an interesting story in a veridical manner, without distortion of the facts or citations, giving every possible viewpoint”. He noticed that the sources of the information “want us to not tell facts but their views of those facts, and that we should say that those views are the facts”. According to him, such situation may change with time and the spreading of the legal awareness to wide portions of the population, and the understanding of functioning of the information business – among the readers and informers of the mass media.

Olga Boguslavskaya, the second winner of the Right to Know competition in the nomination “To protect a man”, a known Moscow journalist, admitted that she was “out of tune” with the today’s life since “one cannot write a court essay for two months in the XXIst century: no one will need it, once it’s completed. But I will write it for two months, because I respect my profession and do not want to be considered a dilettante”. She believes that the advocate and reader reading the article should know exactly that the journalist has communicated to them everything he could. She thinks it is necessary to show the material to the advocates prior to the publication, because “first, I am a philologist, and second – I respect the advocates, who have bothered to spend their time on me”. Only then, says Olga Boguslavskaya, journalism is a vocation and not a business any longer. If the journalist does not know anything, he must research until he understands all details and professional peculiarities of the case.

Lev Bardin, Advocate of the Central Bar College of Moscow, pointed out that chemistry in the relations may also appear between people of different professions. The relations between the advocates and the mass media are an example of this. The readers enjoy all types of publications: a thoughtful court essay, a short report, a news note. The reader does not think that the journalist needs a lawyer’s degree to understand the unacceptability of publishing legal false information. The mass media’s task is to help prevent the repeated offence and the “collision” of the common man with the judicial system. That is why he singled out the competition-winning works – they say how to avoid mistakes. In his opinion, this has significant importance for the advocates and journalists alike.

The closing event of meeting was the handing the awards of the “Right to Know” competition. The organizers promised to keep up the good work and to additionally announce the next collection of competition materials in the coming year. The representatives of the FCA of Russia and the Law Firm "YUST" thanked all members of the discussion for their activity and interest to the competition.

Photo © by E.Gorbunov.

Information on the competition

In 2012, the FCA of Russia and the Law Firm "YUST" held a competition of the journalist materials on the problems of justice and protection of the rights of organizations and individuals, called the “Right to Know”. The Guild of Court Reporters was the strategic partner of the event.

Journalists, reporters and photoreporters, mass media staff members as well as independent ones, were invited to take part in the competition. Materials of all genres except interviews were accepted: notes, articles, pamphlets, feuilletons, essays, journalist’s investigations, reportages and photoreportages.

First winners of the competition:

Winners of the First All-Russian Contest of Journalism Papers “RIGHT TO KNOW-2012”:

1. “A CONFLICT IN A CHEST” for the best coverage of precedents and collision – Elena Tiurina, publication “We will teach you journalism! Now bring your cash”, “Browser” students’ newspaper of the Voronezh State University (city of Voronezh);
2. “HUMAN AND POWER” for the best analytics and journalist’s investigations of cases arising out of administrative legal relations – Dmitry Kizianov, publication “Overcoming barriers”, “Sovetskaya Adygeya” newspaper, (city of Maykop);
3. “CRIME AS PUNISHMENT” for the best analytics and journalist’s investigations of criminal offence cases – Tamara Kirichenko, publication “Evil Fate”, “Khakasia” newspaper (city of Abakan);
4. “LABYRINTHS OF ETHICS” for the best coverage of the problem of morality and ethics in the professional activity of lawyers – Georgy Ramazashvili, publication “Dangerous Precedent”, “Svobodnaya Mysl (Free Thought)” magazine (city of Moscow);
5. “TO PROTECT A MAN” for the best coverage of problems in the area of observing the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Human Rights Convention – Olga Boguslavskaya, publications “Mother in three moves” and “Mother in three moves – 2”, “Moskovsky Komsomolets” newspaper (city of Moscow); Olga Sukinova, publication “I happily delude myself”, “Vecherny Chelyabinsk” (city of Chelyabinsk);
6. “OBJECTIVE RIGHT” for the best photo work – Andrey Stenin, a RIA Novosti photographer (city of Moscow);
7. “JUST JOKING” – Konstantin Maler, cartoonist artist of Pravo.RU news portal (city of Moscow);
8. SPECIAL AWARD from the Law Firm "YUST" for personal contribution to the development of a steady relationship between the mass media and the members of the legal community – Olga Kostikova, Head of the Service of Promotion and Development of the Russian Legal and Judicial Information Agency.

SPECIAL AWARD from the Federal Chamber of Advocates of Russia for the director’s work on the documentary “Defender Ariya” about the Russian advocate Semen Lvovich Ariya – Alexander Marutyan, cinema director.