I am covering issues of attorney independence around the world, and I am, of course, interested in how such issues are handled in my native country, Russia.
So far, in Russia your trusted neighbor could represent you in court, other than in criminal cases, as long as you, once again, trust him or her and gave him or her a power of attorney to do so.
That is about to change, possibly, soon.
It is no big secret that the Russian economy has been suffering greatly recently due to actions of its leadership.
As a result, the market of all paid services has dwindled.
At that background, Russian attorneys did the same as American attorneys did after the Great Depression - moved for a monopoly for legal services under the guise of protecting consumers, but in fact protected their own market from competition that could have lowered prices for services of legal elite.
Of course, the legal elite in the U.S. (as it will, undoubtedly, do in Russia), does not want those same consumers to participate in regulation that is claimed to be for consumers' benefit, instead establishing super-majorities of market players to regulate themselves, quash competition and grant or revoke state licensing as personal favors or punishments.
As reported by Russian sources covering developments in the market of legal services, on October 27, 2015 the Russian Ministry of Justice held a meeting to finalize conceptual rules of regulation of attorney's monopoly for representation in court (the linked resource is in Russian) - of course, under the guise of preventing "crooks" from defrauding innocent consumers.
As we know from experience in the U.S., the crooks are, in fact, inside, the legal elite that, under the guise of protecting consumers, is protecting their own market and applies attorney discipline only to critics of their misconduct, while allowing members of the "old boys' club" to get away with murder, as long as the "old boys" (or girls) are well-connected or related to high-ranking members of the government of any branch, on state or federal level.
Questions arise:
1) if it ain't broken - why fix it;
2) doesn't anybody learn on other people's mistakes? should everybody step on self-created rusted rakes in order to first suffer and then - years and decades down the road, after thousands and, possibly, millions of people suffered from that mistake, try to start deregulating the "noble profession", as the process began in the U.S. and is well under way in the UK and some other European countries?
One more thing - Russian attorneys do not take into account that the gifted cage they are getting themselves into provides not only the upside (monopoly), but also a huge downside (dependency on government favors for their livelihood).
And that in return for monopoly for the profession as a whole, especially given Russia's recent history, court attorneys may be paving for themselves a road to GULAG.
Because it is a matter of time when a case turns up when an attorney will not be able to stand aside and will have to take a position, possibly a position that the government will not like.
And the attorney will quickly be disbarred, blacklisted and will not be allowed to work even as a janitor in a law firm, despite the attorney's ability to help people, and an unmet need for court representation in the attorney's specific area of law.
By locking themselves in this guilted cage, Russian attorneys strip themselves of their independence and of their freedom of speech and freedom to actually help their clients and at the same time earn their living by making necessary and honest arguments to the court, not stake their living upon brown-nosing judges at every turn, as American attorneys are forced to do.
Isn't that a little bit too much of a loss, even in return for a monopoly?
No comments:
Post a Comment