The appointed lawyer proved his right to the fee
[ad_1]
To do this, he had to go all the way to the Supreme Court.
The right of an appointed lawyer to a fee for familiarizing himself with court documents was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Russia. The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases made the corresponding decision after considering the complaint of a lawyer from Chuvashia against the refusal of the Sixth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction to pay him a fee for familiarizing himself with the protocol of the trial of his client.
As follows from the ruling of the higher authority, the lawyer, at the request of his client, requested the Sixth Court of Cassation for the minutes of the meeting at which her cassation appeal was considered. He was provided with a copy of the document, he familiarized himself with it, and after some time he went to court for a fee. But he was refused.
The decision of the Court of Cassation stated that the work of the appointed lawyer is terminated after the final decision is made, and it was made. So familiarization with the protocol was beyond the scope of his authority. In addition, the lawyer did not provide any evidence that he had read the protocol.
The Supreme Court did not agree with the position of their colleagues. Firstly, the file contains a notice and a report on the sending of a copy of the document. Secondly, the lawyer attached this copy to the complaint sent to the Supreme Court. In addition, from the case materials it follows that at the court hearing the client stated that she was instructing the lawyer to read the protocol in order to submit comments on it. Thus, in examining the court document, he acted within the scope of his powers. The decision of the Sixth Court of Cassation was overturned.
As lawyer Igor Trunov explained to MK, the defense lawyer’s services really had to be paid. The lawyer’s work does not end with the issuance of a court decision or final ruling, and each action, for example, filing an appeal or cassation complaint, must be paid. In this case, it is obvious that the lawyer continued to work in favor of his client on her behalf. So the lawyer’s victory is natural.
[ad_2]
Source link
