On 13 March, the Commission of the Council of the Federal Chamber of Lawyers (FPA) of the Russian Federation on the Protection of Lawyers’ Rights published its opinion regarding the judgment of the Petushinsky District Court of the Vladimir Region, issued on 17 January 2025, against attorneys Vadim Kobzev and Alexey Liptser.
As a reminder, in January 2025, the Petushinsky Court completed its consideration of the criminal case against Alexey Navalny’s former attorneys — Vadim Kobzev, Alexey Liptser, and Igor Sergunin. All three were charged under the article on participation in the "extremist" Anti-Corruption Foundation (Part 2 of Article 282.1 of the Russian Criminal Code). They were all also placed on Rosfinmonitoring’s list of extremists and terrorists. In a move echoing the worst traditions of Belarusian courts, Judge Shilova decided to close the trial to the public. On 17 January, Vadim Kobzev was sentenced to 5.5 years in a penal colony, Alexey Liptser to 5 years, and Igor Sergunin to 3.5 years.
The opinion was issued following a petition by attorneys A. Grivtsov and A. Orlov. In their view, the court’s verdict relied on the results of an operational-search activity — surveillance involving audio and video recording of conversations between Navalny and his lawyers at facilities of the Vladimir Regional Directorate of the Federal Penitentiary Service — carried out in violation of Part 4 of Article 89 of the Russian Penal Enforcement Code.
The FPA stresses the need for additional guarantees to ensure that attorneys can carry out their professional duties properly, with protection for their person and for intangible assets such as their honour, dignity, and professional reputation, as outlined in the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. In particular, attorneys must be able to perform their professional functions without threats, harassment, intimidation, or improper interference (paragraph 16).
The Commission condemned the court's approach in attempting to justify the surveillance of meetings between a lawyer and their client by referring to a clarification issued by the Russian Constitutional Court. This clarification stated that attorney-client privilege applies only to communications that do not involve criminally unlawful conduct by either the lawyer or their client. It was further noted that interference by state authorities in the lawyer-client relationship may occur only in exceptional cases — specifically when there are reasonable suspicions of abuse of rights by the lawyer or malicious misuse by the client receiving legal assistance.
During the trial, the court found that such an exceptional circumstance allegedly existed in this criminal case (as stated on page 227 of the judgment).
"Part 4 of Article 89 of the Russian Penal Enforcement Code does not provide for any exceptions to the prohibition on recording meetings between a lawyer and their client," the Commission stated. "The Vladimir Regional Court’s authorisation to record a private meeting between a detained individual (in this case, a convicted person) and their lawyers is unprecedented. In the entire history of Russian justice, no such case has ever been recorded. Moreover, such practices were absent even during the Soviet era (when surveillance required a prosecutor’s authorisation)."
The Commission also criticised the absolutist approach taken in the name of fighting crime, noting: "A legal, democratic state does not pursue crime prevention 'at any cost.' To protect human dignity and uphold the social and moral values of public life, the Russian Constitution and federal laws impose strict prohibitions on the forced seizure of information that may be significant for solving crimes. They protect the presumption of innocence, the right against self-incrimination, the confidentiality of confession, and they criminalise torture by state officials aimed at extracting information or confessions — recognising any such evidence as inadmissible. The absolute prohibition established by Part 4 of Article 89 of the Penal Enforcement Code belongs to this category of immunities. The very possibility of lawfully recording private meetings between lawyers and their clients would undermine the fundamental foundations of the legal profession."
The Commission concluded that where a conflict arises between two legal norms — the general provision allowing courts to restrict constitutional rights during operational-search activities (Article 9 of the Law on Operational-Search Activities) and the specific provision (Part 4 of Article 89 of the Penal Enforcement Code) protecting the confidentiality of meetings between convicted individuals and their lawyers — priority must be given to the norm that provides a higher level of guarantees for the rights and freedoms of convicted persons and their lawyers.
The Commission found that the professional rights of lawyers Vadim Kobzev and Alexey Liptser were violated when their private consultations with their client, Navalny, were unlawfully recorded.
At the same time, the Commission emphasised that although the fight against crime is important, the state must use lawful methods that do not violate rights protected by special legal norms, such as the confidentiality of meetings between lawyers and their clients.
As a reminder, in January 2025, the Petushinsky Court completed its consideration of the criminal case against Alexey Navalny’s former attorneys — Vadim Kobzev, Alexey Liptser, and Igor Sergunin. All three were charged under the article on participation in the "extremist" Anti-Corruption Foundation (Part 2 of Article 282.1 of the Russian Criminal Code). They were all also placed on Rosfinmonitoring’s list of extremists and terrorists. In a move echoing the worst traditions of Belarusian courts, Judge Shilova decided to close the trial to the public. On 17 January, Vadim Kobzev was sentenced to 5.5 years in a penal colony, Alexey Liptser to 5 years, and Igor Sergunin to 3.5 years.
- The Essence of the FPA Commission's Opinion
The opinion was issued following a petition by attorneys A. Grivtsov and A. Orlov. In their view, the court’s verdict relied on the results of an operational-search activity — surveillance involving audio and video recording of conversations between Navalny and his lawyers at facilities of the Vladimir Regional Directorate of the Federal Penitentiary Service — carried out in violation of Part 4 of Article 89 of the Russian Penal Enforcement Code.
The FPA stresses the need for additional guarantees to ensure that attorneys can carry out their professional duties properly, with protection for their person and for intangible assets such as their honour, dignity, and professional reputation, as outlined in the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. In particular, attorneys must be able to perform their professional functions without threats, harassment, intimidation, or improper interference (paragraph 16).
The Commission condemned the court's approach in attempting to justify the surveillance of meetings between a lawyer and their client by referring to a clarification issued by the Russian Constitutional Court. This clarification stated that attorney-client privilege applies only to communications that do not involve criminally unlawful conduct by either the lawyer or their client. It was further noted that interference by state authorities in the lawyer-client relationship may occur only in exceptional cases — specifically when there are reasonable suspicions of abuse of rights by the lawyer or malicious misuse by the client receiving legal assistance.
During the trial, the court found that such an exceptional circumstance allegedly existed in this criminal case (as stated on page 227 of the judgment).
"Part 4 of Article 89 of the Russian Penal Enforcement Code does not provide for any exceptions to the prohibition on recording meetings between a lawyer and their client," the Commission stated. "The Vladimir Regional Court’s authorisation to record a private meeting between a detained individual (in this case, a convicted person) and their lawyers is unprecedented. In the entire history of Russian justice, no such case has ever been recorded. Moreover, such practices were absent even during the Soviet era (when surveillance required a prosecutor’s authorisation)."
The Commission also criticised the absolutist approach taken in the name of fighting crime, noting: "A legal, democratic state does not pursue crime prevention 'at any cost.' To protect human dignity and uphold the social and moral values of public life, the Russian Constitution and federal laws impose strict prohibitions on the forced seizure of information that may be significant for solving crimes. They protect the presumption of innocence, the right against self-incrimination, the confidentiality of confession, and they criminalise torture by state officials aimed at extracting information or confessions — recognising any such evidence as inadmissible. The absolute prohibition established by Part 4 of Article 89 of the Penal Enforcement Code belongs to this category of immunities. The very possibility of lawfully recording private meetings between lawyers and their clients would undermine the fundamental foundations of the legal profession."
- Conclusions
The Commission concluded that where a conflict arises between two legal norms — the general provision allowing courts to restrict constitutional rights during operational-search activities (Article 9 of the Law on Operational-Search Activities) and the specific provision (Part 4 of Article 89 of the Penal Enforcement Code) protecting the confidentiality of meetings between convicted individuals and their lawyers — priority must be given to the norm that provides a higher level of guarantees for the rights and freedoms of convicted persons and their lawyers.
The Commission found that the professional rights of lawyers Vadim Kobzev and Alexey Liptser were violated when their private consultations with their client, Navalny, were unlawfully recorded.
At the same time, the Commission emphasised that although the fight against crime is important, the state must use lawful methods that do not violate rights protected by special legal norms, such as the confidentiality of meetings between lawyers and their clients.
