On the questioning of the lawyer as a witness

Abstract

The article discusses such concepts as witness immunity and the prohibition of questioning a person as a witness. This issue is being investigated in the context of the fact that these are two independent concepts and the allocation of each of them has its own basis: persons with witness immunity are exempt from the obligation to testify due to the presence of kinship and family relations, and the prohibition of questioning a person as a witness is associated with the implementation of certain activities by this person. The main focus is on the prohibition of interrogation as a witness by a lawyer. Based on the study of judicial practice, including the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the author notes a gradual transition from an absolute ban on questioning a lawyer to giving courts the opportunity to interrogate a lawyer as a witness without his consent and the consent of the client. The article gives a critical assessment of the approach to solving this issue, which has developed in practice, which changes the position of a lawyer in criminal proceedings: from the position of a representative, a defender to the position of an eyewitness to certain events. It is noted that this approach is obviously incorrect, and this position is justified. The author comes to the conclusion that lawyers are involved in criminal proceedings in order to combat procedural violations of the rights of their principals as lawyers (persons with the necessary professional knowledge and skills), and not in order to subsequently testify about the violations seen as a witness. It is unacceptable to constantly consider a lawyer as an eyewitness of illegal actions, and not as a defender of his clients from these illegal actions, otherwise lawyers will not be able to provide qualified legal assistance. The authors of the article consider the position of the courts to be correct, in which the courts recognize the interrogation of a lawyer as a witness as illegal with the recognition of the testimony received from the lawyer as inadmissible evidence.