On the ‘Double Protection’ Issues

Based on regulatory sources, materials from the judicial and disciplinary practice of regional bar chambers, and bar instruments, the paper analyzes certain aspects of double protection, when a court appointed attorney participates in the case along with an arranged lawyer. In particular, the paper studies issues on the priority of legally protected values when deciding on the admissibility of ‘double protection’; on the degree of completeness and consistency of legal regulation of relevant legal relations in their legal and professional ethical context; on the validity of expanding the legal grounds for the participation of a court-appointed attorney; on the effect of the rule of Part 3 of Art. 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation on the failure of a defense lawyer to appear within 5 days in relation to a court-appointed lawyer; on the possibility of challenging the courtappointed attorney due to their «low qualifications.» Given the incompleteness and inconsistency of regulation of this sphere, which is significant both legally and professionally and ethically, and taking into account the different tasks in the implementation of the functions of criminal proceedings by the bodies of inquiry and investigation, as well as the state prosecution — on the one hand, and the defense — on the other, it is important to find there is a certain regulatory balance in this area. It should also be taken into account that the institution of «double protection» in one way or another touches on the issue of conflict of public and private interests. According to the author, it is necessary to eliminate the incompleteness and inconsistency of the normative regulation of the institution of «double protection», develop unified approaches to the implementation of this institution by lawyers, ensure consistent corporate disciplinary practice in matters of bringing a lawyer to disciplinary liability, promote the unity of law enforcement practice in this matter by the bodies of inquiry and investigation and courts.

1. Gavrilov S. N. K voprosu o tolkovanii otdelnykh terminov v kontekste postroeniya korporativnoy sistemy menedzhmenta kachestva yuridicheskoy pomoshchi (uslug) v advokature // Advokatskaya praktika. — 2010. — № 5. — S. 4–19.

2. Gavrilov S. N. Realizatsiya protsessnogo podkhoda k kachestvu kvalifitsirovannoy yuridicheskoy pomoshchi v usloviyakh tsifrovizatsii // Lex russica. — 2022. — T. 75. — № 2. — S. 108–120.

3. Gasparyan N. Izmenit slozhivshiesya stereotipy // Advokatskaya gazeta — 2019. — № 23 (304). — URL: https://www.advgazeta.ru/mneniya/izmenit-slozhivshiesya-stereotipy/ (data obrashcheniya: 29.11.2023).

4. Gasparyan N. Navyazyvanie zashchitnika sudom kak opasneyshiy vid narusheniya professionalnykh prav advokata // Ofitsialnyy sayt FPA RF. — URL: https://fparf.ru/polemic/opinions/navyazyvanie-zashchitnikasudom/ (data obrashcheniya: 29.11.2023).

5. Gladysheva O. V. Dvoynaya i subsidiarnaya zashchita v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve // Yuridicheskiy vestnik Kubanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. — 2022. — № 3 (14). — S. 95–104. — URL: https://doi.org/10.31429/20785836-14-3-95-104/ (data obrashcheniya: 08.02.2024).

6. «Dvoynaya zashchita» v kontekste obshchikh problem pravosudiya // Advokatskaya gazeta — 2019. — № 21 (302).

7. Dvoynaya zashchita nedopustima // Advokatskaya gazeta. — 2013. — № 17 (154). — URL: https://www.advgazeta.ru/arhivnye-zapisi/dvoynaya-zashchita-nedopustima/ (data obrashcheniya: 28.11.2023).

8. Devyatkin G. S. Aktualnye voprosy postanovleniya Plenuma Verkhovnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii o primenenii zakonodatelstva o prave na zashchitu // Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedeniy. Povolzhskiy region. Obshchestvennye nauki. — 2015. — № 4 (36). — S. 52–59.

9. Dyadkin D. Nezavisimost i zakonnost. Bez kompromissov // Advokatskaya gazeta. — 2022. — № 10 (363).

10. Zabuga E. Algoritm deystviy v sluchae «dvoynoy zashchity» // Advokatskaya gazeta. 11 oktyabrya 2018. — URL: https://www.advgazeta.ru/mneniya/algoritm-deystviy-v-sluchae-dvoynoy-zashchity/ (data obrashcheniya: 08.02.2024).

11. Kalacheva E. N. Problemy naznacheniya advokata-zashchitnika v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve i vozmozhnye puti resheniya: vyzovy tsifrovizatsii // Vestnik Universiteta imeni O.Е. Kutafina (MGYuA). — 2020. — № 11 (75). — S. 112–123.

12. Kipnis N. Opasnosti «dvoynoy zashchity». O postanovlenii Konstitutsionnogo Suda RF ot 17.07.2019 № 28-P // Ofitsialnyy sayt FPA RF. — URL: https://fparf.ru/polemic/opinions/opasnosti-dvoynoy-zashchity/ (data obrashcheniya: 29.11.2023).

13. Klyuvgant V. V. Pravo svobodnogo vybora advokata — neotemlemaya chast prava na zashchitu. Praktika «dvoynoy zashchity» ne mozhet byt podderzhana advokatskoy korporatsiey // Ofitsialnyy sayt FPA RF. — URL: https://fparf.ru/polemic/opinions/pravo-svobodnogo-vybora-advokata-neotemlemaya-chast-pravana-zashchitu/ (data obrashcheniya: 29.11.2023).

14. Korshunov A. V., Shaevich A. A. Nekotorye problemy uchastiya advokata v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve po naznacheniyu // Kriminalistika: vchera, segodnya, zavtra. — 2021. — T. 18. — № 2. — S. 196–206.

15. Levanyuk E. Mezhoblastnoy masshtab narusheniya prava na zashchitu // Ofitsialnyy sayt FPA RF. — URL: https://fparf.ru/polemic/opinions/mezhoblastnoy-masshtab-narusheniya-prava-na-zashchitu/ (data obrashcheniya: 29.11.2023).

16. Nikiforov A. Spravlyatsya s neprostymi situatsiyami // Advokatskaya gazeta — 2019. — № 23 (304).

17. Pilipenko Yu. S. Zloupotreblenie pravom so storony advokatov: pravovaya pozitsiya Konstitutsionnogo Suda RF, Verkhovnogo Suda RF i ESPCh // Vestnik Universiteta imeni O.Е. Kutafina (MGYuA). — 2020. — № 11. — S. 37–43.

18. Poletilo O. Ne narushat pravo na zashchitu // Advokatskaya gazeta. — 2019. — № 23 (304).

19. Reznik G. Nashi raznoglasiya // Advokatskaya gazeta. — 2015. — № 17 (202).

20. Suchkov A. V. Neobkhodimo vernutsya k obsuzhdeniyu voprosov otkaza ot zashchitnika i «mnozhestvennoy» zashchity // Advokatskaya gazeta. — 14.09.2018. — URL: https://www.advgazeta.ru/mneniya/osnovanieuchastiya-advokata-v-dele-osnova-diskussii/ (data obrashcheniya: 29.12.2023).

21. Terenina T. Yu. Nesoglasovannost deystviy mezhdu zashchitnikom po vyboru obvinyaemogo i zashchitnikom po naznacheniyu sledovatelya // Sovremennye nauchnye issledovaniya i razrabotki. — 2018. — № 3. — S. 537–539.

22. Tikhonov M. Opredelitsya s ponyatiem // Advokatskaya gazeta — 2019. — № 16 (297).

23. Trubetskoy N. Zashchitnik v neotlozhnom protsessualnom deystvii // Advokatskaya gazeta. — 2022. — № 9 (362).

24. Khmyrov R. Narushenie prava na zashchitu nedopustimo // Advokatskaya gazeta. — 2022. — № 10 (363).

25. Chistilina D. O. Problemy osushchestvleniya «dvoynoy zashchity» v ugolovnom protsesse Rossii // Izvestiya Yugo-Zapadnogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya «Istoriya i pravo». — 2020. — T. 10. — № 2. — S. 68–80.