The Problem of Excessive Reliance on Dispositive Principles in the Regulation of Legal Representation in Civil Procedure

In anticipation of reforming the institution of legal representation in court, it is appropriate to highlight the problems associated with its legal regulation. As a starting point, it should be noted that there is considerable regulatory discretion and a lack of unified approaches. This often takes place due to the diversity of actors involved. However, in general, the issue stems from the specific features of the method of procedural law. In academic research, insufficient attention is typically paid to the method of law, even though it is precisely this method that shapes legal relationships in a particular way. In the procedural context, the method can be understood as the totality of regulatory elements aimed at achieving the goals of justice. Traditionally, in the theory of procedural law, the method of regulation is described as combining mandatory and discretionary elements. For civil procedure to function effectively, it must grant its participants a degree of discretion in carrying out procedural actions. At the same time, such discretion should exist within reasonable limits, consistent with the objectives and purposes of civil proceedings. For example, the absence of a unified approach to the qualification of representatives, the formalization of legal relationships, and the granting of authority may negatively affect the efficiency of procedural activities and the achievement of justice. Given the particular social significance of the institution of legal representation in court, it can be argued that its current legal framework demonstrates an excessive reliance on discretionary principles.

1. Ageeva G. E. Tsifrovaya transformatsiya professionalnogo predstavitelstva // LegalTech: nauchnye resheniya dlya professionalnoy yuridicheskoy deyatelnosti: sbornik dokladov IX Mosk. yurid. foruma, 14–16 apr. 2022 g. Ch. 4. — M.: Izd. tsentr Universiteta imeni O.Е. Kutafina (MGYuA), — 2022. — S. 306–309.

2. Administrativnoe sudoproizvodstvo: uchebnik dlya studentov yurid. vyssh. ucheb. zavedeniy / otv. red. V. V. Yarkov. — 2-e izd., ispr. i dop. — M.: Statut, 2021. — 662 s.

3. Alekseev S. S. Obshchaya teoriya prava: v 2 t. T. 1. — M.: Yurid. lit., 1981. — 359 s.

4. Arbitrazhnyy protsess: uchebnik / otv. red. V. V. Yarkov. — 7-e izd., pererab. i dop. — M.: Statut, 2017. — 443 s.

5. Argunov A. V. Grazhdanskiy protsess Rossii i Frantsii: printsipy sostyazatelnosti i dispozitivnosti // Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya «Pravo». — 2022. — № 1. — S. 43–51.

6. Baytin M. I., Petrov D. E. Metod regulirovaniya v sisteme prava: vidy i struktura // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. — 2006. — № 2. — S. 84–95.

7. Belyaev V. P., Belyaeva G. S. Protsessualno-pravovoe regulirovanie: problema effektivnosti // Aktual’nye problemy rossijskogo prava. — 2023. — № 18 (11). — S. 29–38.

8. Voytovich L. V. Realizatsiya printsipa dispozitivnosti pri vedenii del predstavitelem v tsivilisticheskom sudoproizvodstve // Printsipy grazhdanskogo protsessualnogo prava: problemy pravovogo zakrepleniya, tolkovaniya i pravoprimeneniya: sbornik statey po materialam Mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konferentsii, 9–10 okt. 2020 g. / sost. i red. Z. Sh. Matchanova. — SPb.: Asterion, 2020. — S. 182–189.

9. Gevargiz A. A. K voprosu ob istorii sudebnogo predstavitelstva v Rossii // Biznes v zakone. — 2008. — № 3. — S. 207–209.

10. Grazhdanskiy protsess: uchebnik. — 3-e izd., pererab. i dop. / pod red. M. K. Treushnikova. — M.: Gorodets, 2010. — 816 s.

11. Gromoshina N. A. Differentsiatsiya i unifikatsiya v grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve: avtoref. dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. — M., 2010. — 50 s.

12. Ignatenkova K. E. Dozvolenie kak sposob pravovogo regulirovaniya: avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — Saratov, 2006. — 28 s.

13. Kulapov V. L. Sposob pravovogo regulirovaniya. — Saratov: Saratov. gos. akademiya prava, 2010. — 173 s.

14. Kurochkin S. A. Soglasheniya v tsivilisticheskom protsesse // Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa. — 2012. — № 3. — S. 52–72.

15. Lang P. P. Pravovaya deyatelnost: aksiologicheskie i mirovozzrencheskie osnovaniya: dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. — Samara, 2022. — 502 s.

16. Melnikov A. A. Sovetskiy grazhdanskiy protsessualnyy zakon. — M.: Nauka, 1973. — 160 s.

17. Osintsev D. V. Metody pravovogo regulirovaniya ili sposoby formulirovaniya pravovykh norm? // Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal. — 2016. — № 6 (111). — S. 19–35.

18. Petrov D. E. Metod i sposob pravovogo regulirovaniya: voprosy sootnosheniya // Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedeniy. Povolzhskiy region. Obshchestvennye nauki. — 2016. — № 1 (37). — S. 37–42.

19. Pimenova E. N. Problema sootnosheniya chastnykh i publichnykh interesov v rossiyskom arbitrazhnom protsessualnom prave: avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — Saratov, 2010. — 23 s.

20. Sakhnova T. V. O predmete grazhdanskogo protsessualnogo prava v kontekste sovremennykh reform // Vestnik Universiteta imeni O.Е. Kutafina (MGYuA). — 2021. — № 12 (88). — S. 41–49.

21. Sorokina Yu. V. Metod pravovogo regulirovaniya kak proyavlenie sushchnostnykh svoystv prava // Voprosy rossiyskogo i mezhdunarodnogo prava. — 2011. — № 1. — S. 8–32.

22. Sorokin V. D. Pravovoe regulirovanie: Predmet, metod, protsess (makrouroven). — SPb.: Yurid. tsentr Press, 2003. — 661 s.

23. Uletova G. D. O predmete i metode pravovogo regulirovaniya i samostoyatelnosti ispolnitelnogo prava skvoz prizmu obshcheteoreticheskikh issledovaniy i vzglyadov A. T. Bonnera: novyy vitok diskussii // Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa. — 2022. — № 4. — S. 77–119.

24. Yudin A. V. Grazhdanskoe protsessualnoe pravonarushenie i otvetstvennost. — SPb.: Yurid. kn., 2009. — 622 s.