National pressure records / Article
An anti-war petition, an uncrossed warrant, and court pleadings: what attorneys were disciplined for in 2022
Published May, 15, 2023 года
The "Right to Defense" project has on its hands a review of disciplinary sanctions practice in bar associations for 2022. We have examined it and now would like to share with our readers the grounds and ways Belarusian attorneys were disciplined last year, including why they were expelled from bar associations.
General figures
According to the review, in 2022, 74 attorneys (we remind you that currently there are about 1650 attorneys in Belarus, while at the beginning of 2020, there were 2200) were brought to disciplinary responsibility, which is 26 more than in 2021, and 53 more than in 2020. A total of 27 attorneys were expelled during the year; mostly in the Minsk Regional Bar Association (13) and the Minsk City Bar Association (9). Three attorneys were expelled from the Grodno Regional Bar Association, one from the Vitebsk and Gomel Regional Bar Association. Brest and Mogilev regions expelled no attorneys.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by all territorial bar associations based on the results of inspections, as well as on citizens' complaints, orders of the Minister of Justice and state bodies' letters.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by all territorial bar associations based on the results of inspections, as well as on citizens' complaints, orders of the Minister of Justice and state bodies' letters.
How attorneys disciplined their colleagues
The review does not provide a detailed description of each situation, so we cannot assess the validity of the disciplinary responsibility of a particular attorney, but we can draw certain conclusions as to the disciplinary practice.
For instance, the review demonstrates that most disciplinary sanctions were imposed for "misdemeanors" that were more of a technical nature and had no impact on the quality of legal assistance, such as the absence of the date of legal assistance in the warrant or some unspecified corrections in it. Among the grounds for the prosecution was even the fact that the attorney simply failed to cross out the unused warrant. Attorneys were also brought to responsibility for the absence of a signature in the contract with the client (nothing is said about the client's claims as to the legal assistance rendered) and for the absence of an attorney's signature in the warrant log, which simply confirms that the attorney received the warrant book.
Some of the cases described in the review do indeed border on the violations of the attorneys' rules of professional ethics. These are, for instance, handing over an appeal to a client after the deadline for appealing has expired or signing investigative action documents, although the attorney did not participate in them (in both cases persons were reprimanded).
For instance, the review demonstrates that most disciplinary sanctions were imposed for "misdemeanors" that were more of a technical nature and had no impact on the quality of legal assistance, such as the absence of the date of legal assistance in the warrant or some unspecified corrections in it. Among the grounds for the prosecution was even the fact that the attorney simply failed to cross out the unused warrant. Attorneys were also brought to responsibility for the absence of a signature in the contract with the client (nothing is said about the client's claims as to the legal assistance rendered) and for the absence of an attorney's signature in the warrant log, which simply confirms that the attorney received the warrant book.
Some of the cases described in the review do indeed border on the violations of the attorneys' rules of professional ethics. These are, for instance, handing over an appeal to a client after the deadline for appealing has expired or signing investigative action documents, although the attorney did not participate in them (in both cases persons were reprimanded).
Attorneys' self-government bodies as actors exerting pressure on lawyers
At the same time, the review cites cases in which the validity of disciplinary liability raises serious doubts. For example, an attorney was expelled from the bar who, having already had several reprimands, has allegedly made "inexpert, untactful and incorrect" statements in the pleadings. An attorney was reprimanded who had filed a motion for recusal of the judge; his arguments were conceived as "speculative and insinuating". Attorneys have also been held liable for performing some part of their work for a fee less than the amount specified in the contract, or for "unreasonably exempting clients from paying fees." We believe that the messages sent by such disciplinary practices of the territorial bar associations are aimed at creating a chilling effect on attorneys providing legal assistance in political cases.
Obviously unfair and violating freedom of expression reprimands were imposed on the eight attorneys for signing the "Appeal of Belarusian Attorneys and Lawyers concerning the war in Ukraine". The attorneys expressed their position on the important socio-political event, but the leadership of Minsk City and Minsk Regional Bars considered that they had "spread misleading information on the Internet".
In some cases, in principle, it is unclear what the bars were guided by in bringing attorneys to disciplinary responsibility. For instance, the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Belarus initiated disciplinary proceedings against an attorney who failed to show up at the extraordinary attestation and refused to provide written explanations as to the reason for his failure to attend. The attorney was excluded from the bar for "having committed a disciplinary offense", but the review did not refer to the legal provisions which he had allegedly violated. In general, apparently, this reflects the general situation as to the rule of law; when certain decisions have to be made, there is no need for their legal justification.
Obviously unfair and violating freedom of expression reprimands were imposed on the eight attorneys for signing the "Appeal of Belarusian Attorneys and Lawyers concerning the war in Ukraine". The attorneys expressed their position on the important socio-political event, but the leadership of Minsk City and Minsk Regional Bars considered that they had "spread misleading information on the Internet".
In some cases, in principle, it is unclear what the bars were guided by in bringing attorneys to disciplinary responsibility. For instance, the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Belarus initiated disciplinary proceedings against an attorney who failed to show up at the extraordinary attestation and refused to provide written explanations as to the reason for his failure to attend. The attorney was excluded from the bar for "having committed a disciplinary offense", but the review did not refer to the legal provisions which he had allegedly violated. In general, apparently, this reflects the general situation as to the rule of law; when certain decisions have to be made, there is no need for their legal justification.
Attorneys as bullies and deniers of police rights
The practice of bringing attorneys to disciplinary responsibility for (allegedly) committing administrative offenses deserves attention. While the penalties imposed for traffic violations vary from exclusion from the Bar for drunk driving to a reprimand for fleeing the scene of an accident, the situation with "disorderly conduct", "disobedience to a legal request of an official" and "distribution of extremist materials" is much more straightforward: all the attorneys who have allegedly committed these offenses were expelled.
All in all, 19 attorneys were brought to disciplinary responsibility for committing administrative offenses, 11 of them — for allegedly committing an offense under Article 24.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences ("disobedience to a lawful order or demand of an official exercising his official duties"). That is, judging by the review, the leadership of the bar would prefer to have attorneys, who unquestionably obey all the demands of officials. At the same time, the validity of bringing attorneys to administrative responsibility is often questionable. For example, it is hard to imagine how in one legal advice office in a small town three attorneys at once begin to "disobey the legitimate demands" of the representatives of the authorities. We remind you that we have posted reports from several "court" sessions, in which the attorneys were held administratively liable, such as Vitaly Braginets and Tatsiana Lishankova. Note that we are not aware of any cases in which attorneys were held liable under Article 24.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences before 2020.
The Basic Rules on the Role of Lawyers place an obligation on governments to ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference, and without prosecution or judicial, administrative, economic or other sanctions for any acts performed in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics, or threats of such prosecution and sanctions. The same rules enshrine the right of lawyers to form professional associations to represent their interests.
At the same time, we see that bar associations do not protect their members, but instead deprive them of their right to the profession on formal grounds. Apparently, the leadership of the territorial bar associations and the Belarusian Republican Bar Association are not particularly concerned about the fact that in the end some legal advice offices (and, consequently, individuals in need of legal aid) are left with no attorneys at all.
All in all, 19 attorneys were brought to disciplinary responsibility for committing administrative offenses, 11 of them — for allegedly committing an offense under Article 24.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences ("disobedience to a lawful order or demand of an official exercising his official duties"). That is, judging by the review, the leadership of the bar would prefer to have attorneys, who unquestionably obey all the demands of officials. At the same time, the validity of bringing attorneys to administrative responsibility is often questionable. For example, it is hard to imagine how in one legal advice office in a small town three attorneys at once begin to "disobey the legitimate demands" of the representatives of the authorities. We remind you that we have posted reports from several "court" sessions, in which the attorneys were held administratively liable, such as Vitaly Braginets and Tatsiana Lishankova. Note that we are not aware of any cases in which attorneys were held liable under Article 24.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences before 2020.
The Basic Rules on the Role of Lawyers place an obligation on governments to ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference, and without prosecution or judicial, administrative, economic or other sanctions for any acts performed in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics, or threats of such prosecution and sanctions. The same rules enshrine the right of lawyers to form professional associations to represent their interests.
At the same time, we see that bar associations do not protect their members, but instead deprive them of their right to the profession on formal grounds. Apparently, the leadership of the territorial bar associations and the Belarusian Republican Bar Association are not particularly concerned about the fact that in the end some legal advice offices (and, consequently, individuals in need of legal aid) are left with no attorneys at all.
Information about the disciplinary responsibility of the attorneys that were previously administratively penalized:
1. N. Khamichonok drove his private car Volvo S80, 2805 BI-2, on 15.04.2022 without a document certifying his right to operate this vehicle — reprimanded.
2. A. Saganovich, Art. 24.3 of the Administrative Code (disobedience) — expelled from the bar.
3. M. Makarov, Art. 24.3 of the Administrative Code (disobedience) — expelled from the bar.
4. V. Gulkova, Part 2 Art. 17.11 (distribution of "extremist" materials — currently Art. 19.11 of the Code) of the Administrative Code — expelled from the bar.
5. A. Chirva committed a traffic accident, for which he was held administratively liable under Part 12, Art. 18.13 and Part 2, Art. 18.16 of the Administrative Code — reprimanded.
6. A. Nevedovsky, Art. 24.3 of the Administrative Code (disobedience) — expelled from the bar.
7. 7. E. Papkouski, Part 2 Art. 19.11 (distribution of "extremist" materials) of the Administrative Code — expelled from the bar.
8. T. Lishankova, Art. 19.1 (disorderly conduct) of the Administrative Code — expelled from the bar.
9. A. Nesterenko, Art. 24.3 (disobedience) and Art. 19.1 (disorderly conduct) of the Administrative Code — expelled from the bar. Nesterenko's complaint to the Belarusian Republican Bar Association Board against the ruling of the Minsk Regional Bar Association Board was dismissed.
10. A. Samusev violated the terms of re-registration of his smooth-bore weapon, was held administratively liable under Art. 24.31 of the Code of Administrative Offences — reprimanded.
11. A. Atamanchuk, Art. 24.3 (disobedience) and Part 2 of Art. 19.11 (distribution of "extremist" materials) of the Administrative Code — expelled from the bar.
12. V. Braginets, Art. 24.3 of the Administrative Code (disobedience) — expelled from the bar.
13. L. Atamanchuk, of the Administrative Code (disobedience) — expelled from the bar.
14. I. Zalutskaya, Part 1 Art. 24.23 (participation in unauthorized mass events) of the Code of Administrative Offences — expelled from the bar..
15. V. Bolotov, Art. 24.3 of the Administrative Code (disobedience) — expelled from the bar.
16. O. Bolotova, Art. 24.3 of the Administrative Code (disobedience) — expelled from the bar.
17. N. Malakhova, Art. 24.3 of the Administrative Code (disobedience) — expelled from the bar.
The three above-mentioned attorneys belong to the same legal advice office in Smolevichi district.
18. V. Angelski, Art. 24.3 of the Administrative Code (disobedience) — expelled from the bar.
19. E. Dembitsky was administratively penalized on June 20, 2022, under Part 1 of Art. 18.15 (drunk driving) of the Code of Administrative Offences. His misconduct was conceived as incompatible with the title of a lawyer (namely, the action discrediting the lawyer and the Bar) due also to the failure to inform the chairman (or the deputy chairman) of the Minsk City Bar Association about it — expelled from the bar.
2. A. Saganovich, Art. 24.3 of the Administrative Code (disobedience) — expelled from the bar.
3. M. Makarov, Art. 24.3 of the Administrative Code (disobedience) — expelled from the bar.
4. V. Gulkova, Part 2 Art. 17.11 (distribution of "extremist" materials — currently Art. 19.11 of the Code) of the Administrative Code — expelled from the bar.
5. A. Chirva committed a traffic accident, for which he was held administratively liable under Part 12, Art. 18.13 and Part 2, Art. 18.16 of the Administrative Code — reprimanded.
6. A. Nevedovsky, Art. 24.3 of the Administrative Code (disobedience) — expelled from the bar.
7. 7. E. Papkouski, Part 2 Art. 19.11 (distribution of "extremist" materials) of the Administrative Code — expelled from the bar.
8. T. Lishankova, Art. 19.1 (disorderly conduct) of the Administrative Code — expelled from the bar.
9. A. Nesterenko, Art. 24.3 (disobedience) and Art. 19.1 (disorderly conduct) of the Administrative Code — expelled from the bar. Nesterenko's complaint to the Belarusian Republican Bar Association Board against the ruling of the Minsk Regional Bar Association Board was dismissed.
10. A. Samusev violated the terms of re-registration of his smooth-bore weapon, was held administratively liable under Art. 24.31 of the Code of Administrative Offences — reprimanded.
11. A. Atamanchuk, Art. 24.3 (disobedience) and Part 2 of Art. 19.11 (distribution of "extremist" materials) of the Administrative Code — expelled from the bar.
12. V. Braginets, Art. 24.3 of the Administrative Code (disobedience) — expelled from the bar.
13. L. Atamanchuk, of the Administrative Code (disobedience) — expelled from the bar.
14. I. Zalutskaya, Part 1 Art. 24.23 (participation in unauthorized mass events) of the Code of Administrative Offences — expelled from the bar..
15. V. Bolotov, Art. 24.3 of the Administrative Code (disobedience) — expelled from the bar.
16. O. Bolotova, Art. 24.3 of the Administrative Code (disobedience) — expelled from the bar.
17. N. Malakhova, Art. 24.3 of the Administrative Code (disobedience) — expelled from the bar.
The three above-mentioned attorneys belong to the same legal advice office in Smolevichi district.
18. V. Angelski, Art. 24.3 of the Administrative Code (disobedience) — expelled from the bar.
19. E. Dembitsky was administratively penalized on June 20, 2022, under Part 1 of Art. 18.15 (drunk driving) of the Code of Administrative Offences. His misconduct was conceived as incompatible with the title of a lawyer (namely, the action discrediting the lawyer and the Bar) due also to the failure to inform the chairman (or the deputy chairman) of the Minsk City Bar Association about it — expelled from the bar.
