Publications

Russian

Melnichenko R. G.The lawyer to the lawyer the friend, a companion and...? // the Lawyer. № 4. 2008. Interpreter By Chamurlieva Maya

By Popular wisdom for a long time it is noticed that at representatives of one trade special relations to each other. It is confirmed with a proverb "dog does not eat dog". The careful and attentive relation to the colleague - a basis of corporate solidarity. For this reason lawyer ethics scrupulously regulate behaviour rules between lawyers. After all the incorrect behaviour of lawyers under the relation to each other casts a shade not only on them, but also on all lawyer corporation.

The leading expert in the field of lawyer ethics the doctor of jurisprudence Michael Barshchevsky in one of the works has specified:" Hardly we can give the full list of those actions which the lawyer concerning the colleagues in those or other conditions, and from what it should refrain should make. And, perhaps, it is inexpedient - a life always richer than any instructions and rules "2. Really, general rules of mutual relations of lawyers contain as in scientific works, and, for example, in article 15 of the Code of a professional etiquette of the lawyer. It would Seem, read and carry out. But far from it! Inability to behave with colleagues - widespread enough phenomenon in the modern lawyer environment. Therefore we will try to show the maintenance of this third lawyer sin on concrete examples.

There are two basic ways professionally to be allocated among the colleagues. The first - to differ from others higher level of professionalism, a correctness, etc. Other way - to "drop" the colleague, to humiliate it in the opinion of the and another's client, and also other participants of process. It can be made easily, outwardly not too considerably, but it is very effective. For example, the phrase accidentally thrown during judicial session will expose "this with gross spelling mistakes made statement of claim" in unattractive light of the lawyer which has made it, and now represents itself as the representative of an opposite side. Infringement of a following rule of lawyer ethics in this case takes place: the lawyer should abstain from the use of the expressions belittling business reputation of other lawyer in connection with realisation by it of lawyer activity. No one lawyer is insured both from professional errors, and from oversights. It is natural that the lawyer of an opposite side, being the remedial opponent, should use these circumstances in interests of the client. However, if these oversights do not bring a sure gain to the client, accentuation on them of attention of other participants of process will be apprehended as incorrect behaviour.

We will give an example from practice of work of lawyers of the Volgograd region. Two lawyers for 30 minutes on the fault were late to the beginning of judicial session. Having apologised and having listened to the remark of the judge and the public prosecutor, they have started discharge of duties. Throughout all judicial session other lawyer - the representative of the victim, petitioned before court for punishment of the guilty lawyers. Eventually even the judge has expressed misunderstanding of the similar relation of the lawyer to the colleagues. The lawyer has broken an ethical rule which demands construction of relations with other lawyers on the basis of mutual respect.

Special condemnation should cause behaviour of the lawyer which initiates intervention of state structures in work of the colleagues. For example, promotes excitation of procedure of any checks concerning the lawyer - the remedial opponent. It at all does not mean that the lawyer has no right to address in the qualifying commission with the complaint to unethical behaviour of other lawyer. It is represented that transfer of consideration of antisocial behaviour of the lawyer from sphere state in sphere of corporate investigation will allow to stop, on the one hand, unfair behaviour of some lawyers, and with another - will allow legal profession to remain independent corporation.

In all subjects of the Russian Federation, which names the lawyers work for many on hearing. The overwhelming majority of them have achieved it professional work, the vigorous activity in bodies of lawyer self-management, and it is simple a solicitous attitude to own professional image. So why many lawyers in dialogue with the clients, public prosecutors, judges afford scornful statements concerning these lawyers? Expressions like "yes I know this lawyer - "or"yes it from itself(himself) does not represent anything especial - the boy still", etc. often enough it is possible to hear even from solid lawyers. From the point of view of the psychology, the similar behaviour speaks simply enough: scornfully responding about the known lawyer, "critic" as though puts itself on one board with it. Russian fabulist Krylov in the product so has beaten a similar situation:" Ah, the Pug, the nobility, it is strong, if barks at an elephant ". Similar"receptions"are incompatible with lawyer ethics which demand from lawyers to abstain from the expressions discrediting the colleagues, and also from criticism of their actions.

Unfortunately, feelings of bad envy to eminent colleagues consume not only ordinary lawyers. So, one of known provincial lawyers has placed in the edition of Lawyer chamber of the Volgograd region article under following heading:" the Mayor remained under guards because of an error of the capital lawyer?" . In article not only conducting concrete criminal case, and in negative aspect is made comments, but also advice to lawyers conducting it is given. The similar public statement in relation to the lawyer is inadmissible. It is inadmissible even in that case when the lawyer of an opposite side in interests of the client tries to generate a negative image of the representative of the remedial opponent. What to speak about the resulted case when the authority of the lawyer is belittled simply so, with envy.

The principal often happens is defenceless for lack of the lawyer. For this reason inspectors actively aspire "to have a talk simply" with it alone. But similar tactics add to the arsenal and some lawyers! For example, withdraw the principal of other lawyer and try to convince him in something or something for itself to find out. The case when the lawyer not only has withdrawn "another's" client is known to "smoke", but also has tried to write down this conversation on a dictophone. Such tactical receptions are absolutely unacceptable. According to the code of a professional etiquette the lawyer has the right to talk to the remedial opponent of the principal who is represented by other lawyer, only from the consent or to presence of the colleague.

With reference to dialogue rules between lawyers it is possible to allocate sphere of relations which are not regulated by lawyer ethics, but enter into a subject of regulation of so-called rules of lawyer politeness. The lawyer-boor causes to the colleagues so much troubles that about similar lawyer грешках it is necessary to talk separately.

One of the most painful points of any lawyer - shortage of time. Not without reason one of the most widespread professional infringements considered by the qualifying commissions, failure by lawyers of judicial sessions is. Here lawyers-nevezhy quite often bring the colleagues. It is possible to result some examples showing such behaviour.

Upon termination of judicial session the chairman together with participants of process defines date of following session. The lawyer of one of the parties specifies that in the offered day it is occupied in other process. The Lawyer-boor starts to be indignant loudly that its colleague ostensibly tries to tighten litigation. Other, not less widespread case: The lawyer, without having possibility to come in judicial session, in advance submits to the judge the petition for adjournment of this, but does not warn the lawyer-colleague that in the appointed day the court will not take place. Indignation of the lawyer when it comes to judicial session which should not take place is clear. A duty of each polite lawyer appreciating not only time, but also time of the colleagues, - not only to warn them about carrying over of judicial session, but also to apologise for the delivered inconveniences.

Similar rules of lawyer politeness very much. It is thought, each lawyer, undertaking something in relation to the colleague, should present, as though he felt itself if its colleague as has led in relation to it.