Решение суда по "секретному иску" адвоката А.Р. Рамалданова к федеральной палате адвокатов Российской Федерации: "незаконность" и "позитивное содержание"

Purpose: To study the issues of illegality and the positive content of the decision of the Khamovnichesky District Court, issued in a claim about the recognition of Clarification No. 03/19 of Ethics and Standards Commission of the Federal Chamber of Advocates of the Russian Federation on the admissibility of advocates appeals to law enforcement agencies and the «Resolution on advocacy ethics» adopted by the IX All-Russian Congress of Advocates contradicting the foundations of law and order and morality. Methodology: The author used the methods of structural and functional analysis, the system method, the formal legal method, the comparative method, the retrospective method, the method of studying documents, the method of included observation. Results: An output is made that the decision of the claim of A.R. Ramaldanov to the Federal Chamber of Advocates of the Russian Federation does not meet the requirements of legality and validity. It has also been established that in accordance with the provisions of the court’s decision, the content of the signs of the objective side of the person being punished according to Clarification No. 03/19, the advocate`s behavior in comparison with the rules actually reflected in its text, the court actually expands, and the circumstances listed in the decision are added to them. Each of them should fall under the signs of «abuse of law» in accordance with Art. 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation: interference with the activities of law enforcement authorities; violation of the principle of independence and corporate of advocacy; neglect of moral traditions and the requirements of professional ethics; undermining the trust in the advocates community; other circumstances. The provisions of Clarification No. 03/19 and the Resolution are in fact supplemented by a mandatory feature of the subjective side of the act - the special purpose of interfering in the activities of the bodies of advocate self-government and damage the credibility of the advocacy, undermining trust in it. In this regard, it is concluded that the decision on the claim of A.R. Ramaldanov can be assessed as an attempt to consolidate a partial actual softening of the provisions of the Explanation of the Ethics and Standards Commission 03/19 and Resolution of the IX All-Russian Congress of Advocates «Resolution on advocacy ethics» and the practice of the possible further application of these acts. Novelty/originality/value: The article is of scientific value, since it is the first attempt to study the current situation in the Russian bar and regulate disciplinary liability of a lawyer in connection with the adoption by the Ethics and Standards Commission of the Federal Chamber of Advocates of the Russian Federation of Clarification No. 03/19 and adoption IX All-Russian Congress of Advocates «Resolution on advocacy ethics».