On the adverse social, economic, educational and budgetary consequences of the reform of the legal services sector (legal analysis of the draft law on the “lawyer monopoly”)

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

A genuine scientific publication constitutes a systematic study of the adverse consequences of adopting the draft Federal Law “On Amending Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation” (prepared by the Ministry of Justice of Russia, Project ID 01/05/07-25/00158248). The authors demonstrate that enacting this bill in its present form would trigger significant destabilization within the legal services market. They forecast an immediate deterioration in the quality of legal assistance coupled with a sharp, multifold increase in its cost. Furthermore, the analysis projects severe long-term consequences, including adverse effects on state budgetary revenues and a substantial reduction in employment opportunities for early-career lawyers, and, in the long term, will negatively impact the state’s budgetary well-being and the employment of young lawyers. While raising the issue of improving the quality of legal services deserves recognition and approval, the authors deem the approach put forward by the Russian Ministry of Justice unacceptable, explicitly condemning the imposition of coercive state controls designed to confer upon attorneys a monopoly over client legal representation. In offering constructive alternatives, the authors propose that the law’s stated objectives could be met more effectively and with minimized adverse impact through alternative measures. These include establishing unified professional and ethical standards for all legal practitioners engaged in litigation, alongside implementing mandatory continuing education requirements for court representatives through the framework of the Ministry of Education and Science. The developed bill has sparked extensive discussions among legal theorists and practicing lawyers, which is why the authors consider the topic of this publication to be sharp and highly relevant.

About the authors

Dmitrii V. Kozin

Clever’s Bright Consulting LLC

Author for correspondence.
Email: kozin@cleversbright.ru

Chief Executive Officer

Russian Federation, Moscow

Denis A. Plekhanov

Clever’s Bright Consulting LLC

Email: plehanov@cleversbright.ru
SPIN-code: 8749-8205

Cand. Sci. (Law); senior counsel

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Zhuravleva M.D. On the issue of introducing the attorney monopoly within the framework of the reform of civil procedural legislation. Legal Science. 2021. No. 6. Pp. 99–102. (In Rus.). EDN: KFIPDZ.
  2. Zarina A.M. Attorney monopoly: Myth or reality. Eurasian Advocacy. 2024. No. 6 (71). Pp. 81–84. (In Rus.)
  3. Kiyazova A.Zh. Regulation of professional activity of legal consultants. Bulletin of the Institute of Legislation and Legal Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 2024. No. 2 (77). Pp. 122–133. (In Rus.)
  4. Kononchuk A.O. Professional representation in Russian arbitration procedural law and the “attorney monopoly”. Bulletin of Science and Education. 2022. No. 6-1 (126). (In Rus.)
  5. Novgorodtsev M.V., Segal O.A. Some aspects of the expediency of introducing an attorney monopoly in civil and arbitration proceedings. Bulletin of Udmurt University. Series: Economics and Law. 2023. No. 6. Pp. 1064–1069. (In Rus.)
  6. Penizev M.V. Main approaches to understanding the institute of attorney monopoly in Russian and international practice. Russian Law: Education, Practice, Science. 2020. No. 3. Pp. 82–92. (In Rus.)
  7. Podolinsky I.A. Professional judicial process: Development prospects. Issues of Russian Justice. 2021. No. 15. Pp. 760–771. (In Rus.)
  8. Ragulin A.V. Round table in St. Petersburg: A cold shower for those violating the norms of attorney ethics, the “witnesses of the ’attorney monopoly’ ” from the Federal Chamber of Attorneys. Eurasian Advocacy. 2025. No. 4 (75). Pp. 38–43. (In Rus.)
  9. Slepova V.V., Sharapova R.R. Attorney monopoly: Pros and cons. International Journal of Humanities and Natural Sciences. 2018. No. 12-2. (In Rus.)
  10. Fisun A.V. On the shortcomings of introducing the attorney monopoly. International Journal of Humanities and Natural Sciences. 2020. No. 10-4. Pp. 97–99. (In Rus.)
  11. Charykov A.V. Qualified legal assistance or attorney monopoly? Law and Administration. 2024. No. 9. Pp. 25–28. (In Rus.)

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).