The accidental exile

On 17 January, a court in central Russia’s Vladimir region sentenced Igor Sergunin to three years and six months, Alexey Liptser to five years and Vadim Kobzev to five years and six months in prison. Their crime? Providing legal representation to the late Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny.

The sentence, which has been condemned by the International Association of Lawyers as a serious violation of the principle of the right to defence, is the first time since Stalin’s Great Purge that lawyers have been imprisoned alongside their client.

“This serves as a chilling warning to all lawyers considering taking on politically sensitive cases, especially those defending clients facing political persecution,” Mariana Katzarova, the UN special rapporteur for human rights in Russia, said on 21 January.

Yet there was almost complete silence on the matter from the Russian Federal Bar Association, which did not dare even condemn the conviction of Sergunin, Kobzev and Liptser. The only official response came from Henry Reznik, the chair of the Commission for the Protection of the Rights of Lawyers, who said that he considered the conviction an “exceptional event” that had saddened him. Neither the Moscow Bar Association nor its regional counterparts spoke out in solidarity with the convicted lawyers.

Olga Mikhaylova, who had no choice but to extend her holiday abroad indefinitely to avoid the same fate as her colleagues, spoke to Novaya Europe about the unprecedented court verdict and what implications it has for the Russian legal community.

NGE: Were you still clinging on to some hope before your colleagues’ verdicts were announced, especially as regards the length of their sentences? 

OM: You know, despite the fact that I’ve been a lawyer for 20 years and stopped harbouring any illusions about our justice system long ago, I still hope for miracles. I think, “Surely it’ll happen this time. The judge gets it”. And I dared to hope again this time, but it didn’t happen. 

I really wanted a different verdict, that goes without saying. Obviously, the court was never going to acquit them, but I still hoped Kobzev and Liptser might not get close to the maximum sentence in a case in which no crime had been committed. 

NGE: Do we have any specific information on Igor Sergunin, who was given a shorter sentence after pleading guilty? What exactly did he plead guilty to?

OM: As far as I know, he did indeed plead guilty. But who knows what he confessed to, because he didn’t commit the crime they were charged with. None of them did. Igor obviously wasn’t an extremist, none of them were, and of course he didn’t want to overthrow the constitutional system, which we were all accused of. Even the case files provide no evidence of that. Yet Igor admitted his guilt — I can understand him though, everybody must choose their own mode of defence. And he shouldn’t be condemned, especially not by people who have never spent a day in prison themselves. 

NGE: What are their prospects now that they’ve been convicted? Is there any chance they will be granted parole now that all three have been added to the list of “extremists and terrorists”? 

OM: No, there is definitely no chance of that. I haven’t heard of anyone on the “extremists and terrorists” list being released on parole. As far as I know, nobody convicted of extremism and terrorism has yet been allowed to apply for a pardon. 

NGE: What consequences, in your opinion, has this case had on the Russian legal profession as a whole, especially for lawyers who specialise in sensitive cases such as defending opposition figures?

OM: The case is unique and unprecedented in as much as lawyers haven’t been prosecuted for representing their clients since the Stalin era. Ninety percent of the charges against us, the Navalny lawyers, overlap with the extremism charges pressed against Alexey himself.

I believe that the case has dealt a very significant blow to the legal profession as a whole … and I’m really afraid we’ll see similar cases after this one, especially as the convictions were partially obtained through the use of illegally made secret recordings of conversations between the lawyers and their client in prison, which is expressly prohibited by law. And they were happy to admit that in court, even though the recording still provided no proof of guilt. 

This new way of “obtaining evidence” was tested for the first time. They constantly filmed and recorded us, and there was a man sitting on the other side of the wall who literally transcribed all our conversations with Navalny. 

In my case, they got a recording of an entire conversation in which Alexey told me he thought he was being poisoned. We wondered whether to go public with that or not at the time. The whole conversation was recorded, in full, and transcribed and it then formed the basis of the charges against me specifically. I was placed under arrest with the recording as the only evidence against me. I was also charged with “discrediting the Russian authorities” by spreading information that Navalny was being poisoned in prison, in addition to extremism. There is actually an extract of that conversation with Alexey in the charges against me.

NGE: The lack of reaction from the Russian Federal Bar Association (RFBA) was telling. Do you think they followed the case and the trial and knew what the consequences would be? Or did they just choose to turn a blind eye to it? 

OM: I actually expected a strong reaction from both the RFBA and the Moscow Bar Association, and I’ve literally just heard that the RFBA said that it viewed the conviction of Kobzev, Liptser and Sergunin as an exceptional event and that it was saddened by the guilty verdict. That was posted on the RFBA website on 20 January, three days after the verdict.

That was all they had to say. Such egregious violations of attorney-client privilege as secretly recording their conversations — confidentiality is a fundamental right lawyers enjoy — are a blow to the profession. Such timid, tepid statements from the association show that it simply doesn’t know what to do when such violations occur. But I think that both the RFBA and everyone else understand only too well that convicting three lawyers as part of a client’s case is a clear blow to independent legal practice, the consequences of which could be absolutely tragic. 

NGE: You are no doubt still in touch with colleagues practising law in Russia, even some working on sensitive political cases. Is the legal community as a whole scared today? 

OM: With political cases, it was already difficult enough to find lawyers to defend opposition and civic activists as it was. People always asked me: “How can you defend Navalny? It’s frightening and dangerous.” And so on. In any case, in Russia, in Moscow, I know there are many lawyers who still believe they should do their job. And they carry on, courageously and honourably, despite the risks, in order to defend their clients, even in political cases. In today’s world it is a mark of courage to be true to your vocation and defend people. I’m very glad this case wasn’t able to intimidate all lawyers. 

NGE: Do you still think of yourself as a Russian lawyer or won’t you practise again if you ever return? 

OM: That’s a very difficult question. If I am able to return to Russia in the future, I doubt I’ll struggle to find work as there will be so much to do. I have no intention of giving up the legal profession, but from exile my task is to ensure that Russian society is not allowed to forget the fate of my convicted colleagues and to do everything in my power to help them.