After the amendments to the law "On activities of Advocates", at the  meeting of February 11 The Chamber of Advocates enacted the Regulation on the Chamber of Advocate, "The Code of Behavior of Advocates" and chose people who prepared  disciplinary cases.

Interview with the Head of the Chamber of Advocates Ruben Sahakyan

The amendments to the law "On Advocacy" which came into force from January 19, became a ground for hot discussions. Some non-advocates expressed an opinion that it is done to strengthen the position of Chamber of Advocates so that the advocates have monopoly. There was a concern that the law could restrict the accessibility of the citizens to apply to the court. What was the reason for concern and were those concerns justified?

Frankly speaking I wouldn't like to talk about it because why should I answer to the opinion of every person? There are various opinions. I'll say there is an opinion of overwhelming majority that there was no restriction of human rights. The amendments to this law actually do not differ from the provisions of the same Article 5 of the same law enacted in 2005.

Why have they revolted today? As they have implemented entrepreneurial activity for years which was forbidden then and it is still forbidden today according to the law "On Advocacy".

It is said that hereinafter a person cannot apply to Non-Advocate that is to the Lawyer and involve them as their representative.

It is true. The law prohibits "regularly or payable" applications. That is it hasn't restricted the right of a person to apply to Non-Advocate in the frames of one legal relation and to take part as a representative by one case. Then why have they raised a clamor and said "citizens, you cannot apply to Non-Advocate any more!" The law says not to apply regularly it comes from Article 2 of the law "On Value Added Tax".

We have the law "On Advocacy" which allowed to be accepted in Chamber of Advocates, why haven't they done this? Once a year we hold an examination for qualification. Why don't they take part?

Some people came and could not overcome the barrier of the examination for qualification. In that case why do they claim they are good lawyers? Of course, it is not about everyone.

Or they say why the law wasn't preliminarily brought up for discussion and we were taken aback. You are a lawyer and you see that the law was enacted by first reading on May 5, 2011, those 7 months weren't enough for you? The project was put on the web-site of NA and of the Ministry of Defense several months ago in 2010. Why haven't you got acquainted with it? How much time did you need to get acquainted with the project and get prepared for the probable situation. The clamor was raised after the enactment of the law.

The opponents of the law claim it is a regressive step. What does the international experience show?

No, there are countries which act according to that order for a long time, Armenia has fallen behind. In Cyprus, the Czech Republic and Denmark only the advocates have a right to provide legal advice and carry on cases in court. The same is in Germany, Hungary, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Lichtenstein, Holland, Norway, Poland and France.

And here the law hasn't taken the right from the advocates to provide advice. If they are good lawyers, then they should be kind and interpret the law literary. Why do they say the non-advocates are not allowed to provide legal advice?

What do the amendments driven by law which were made to the Code of Behavior and the Regulations stipulate?

The Code of Behavior determines the norm of advocate's behavior, how the advocate should behave during his activity or how he shouldn't behave, what kind of activities he can perform and what kind of activities he cannot perform. It determines the types of punishment which were transferred to the code from law and some procedural issues.

From my point of view there are a lot of important amendments. For example, when the advocate on criminal proceedings is invited by the body which implements the proceedings (The investigator, the prosecutor, the court) and he goes, it means he is their "pocket advocate" (so we say between us). Because if you are invited by the investigator you become dependant on the investigator, you cannot tell them they are not right, I mediate that you correct your mistake. We do not admit it the advocacy community doesn't admit it. Here are cases when the investigator calls his friend, relative advocate so that to have honorarium. We consider it betrayal to the client and such cases will be strictly punished up to suspension of license. But we made an exception. If there are such cases but we'll investigate the materials of the case and see that the advocate implemented an active defense and carried out all the necessary activities that he should have carried out, the use of such a strict punishment as in the previous case the suspension of license is inadmissible. He will receive more lenient punishment.

According to the previously existing law the license of the advocate may be dismissed if he would be subjected to disciplinary liability three times in one year. After that the Council of Chamber of Advocates should apply to the Disciplinary Commission and if it got permission then it could suspend. Can you imagine how difficult and time-consuming process it is?  And the advocate making a gross violation, would continue his activity which is inadmissible.

The advocate must take an exam for qualification and also study at advocacy school. The advocate must receive 24 hours of continuing education, must subject to the law on Advocacy, the Code of Behavior and struggle against the money laundering. The advocate doesn't have the right to pronounce an advocacy secret, share his honorarium with non-advocate people because it has corruption risks.

Besides the liabilities there are also some positive things-the advocate's office cannot be searched and the documents cannot be seized which concern the protection of a person so that the advocacy secret won't be betrayed etc.

The advocate doesn't make use of these positive things and he doesn't have any obligations to the client as well as the advocate's honorarium are not controlled by anyone. He won't be subjected to responsibility if he reveals an advocacy secret, introduces to both sides in case of conflict of interests on the same case and the advocate doesn't have that right and the license of advocate can be dismissed.

How many disciplinary proceedings did the Chamber of Advocates take against advocates last year and this year and what kind of punishments were determined?

 Last year 33 disciplinary proceedings were determined. There were various punishments: reprimand, severe reprimand, suspension of license and there were cases that we found that no breaches of behavior were recorded in advocate's activities.

This year we have taken 6 disciplinary proceedings, the investigation hasn't started yet because we have just admitted the procedure of distributing the cases. It is a difficult process, you should distribute so that it is discussed objectively.

The Head of the Chamber of Advocates takes the disciplinary proceedings within one month after receiving the petition but he doesn't take part in the investigation of the case, it is done by the Council of the Chamber and the Council decides whether there is violation of Code or not. At the last meeting we chose 20 people who prepare a case of disciplinary proceedings against the advocates.

We have recently signed a memorandum of cooperation with the police which was not accepted.

I consider it as a form of expression of dissatisfied people who are against the Head of the Chamber of Advocates. The aims of the memorandum are written in the memorandum and there is nothing bad in them, why are they complaining?

They say it won't work.

Let's try and then say it won't work.

Whose initiation was it?

The initiation came after I was invited to an interview at one of the TV stations in November, they talked about the cases when the advocate goes and stands in front of the police building and he is not allowed to enter saying the chief is not here and the advocate's client is indoors and doesn't receive the necessary legal assistance. This is a gross violation of the right and I asked the Chief of Police to react and we'll eliminate such phenomena. He reacted and the memorandum was concluded.

By the way there was an incident after the next day of signing the memorandum. The Advocate Stepan Aghajanyan was not allowed for an hour in administration of Yerevan to see his client the problem was solved immediately by a phone call. Now is it better for the advocate to go and stand in front of the doors and not to be allowed to enter, write complaints for months or to give  a quick solution to that problem?

We see that there are contradictions and omissions in the laws concerning us and the police system which prevent our work and sometimes violate the human rights. Is it a bad initiative to act with a joint initiative to develop legal acts? What is bad?

Most of all I pay importance to the measures of rapid response. Do not violate my rights! And if the advocate violates the policeman's rights they should act within the frames of the law.

Interviewed by Mery Alexanyan

Source:www.hra.am