Mashkevich Aleksey
of the Photo: Gertye Varvara
Lately the lawyer Shamin Kirill causes keen interest in the Ivanovo beau monde: various hearings connected and with his person, and with criminal case, and with the professional moments go. We decided that better than the most Shamin Kirill questions of it will be not answered by anybody to
with
- Shamin Kirill , let's begin with the personal: against you criminal case was brought and you any time were under house arrest. In what stage process now?
- At the moment business is in a condition of preparation for the appeal appeal, my lawyers work in a planned mode. It would be desirable to place accents at once: business began with a grandiose sensation, with unnatural for such category put fireworks in the press and the most various, sometimes absurd comments. However now the facts are as follows: it is a question of an offense of small weight, directly case was considered in world where hear cases on small household disputes and offenses of the minimum public danger. Today the intermediate decision on penalty imposing on me of three million rubles about what also wrote local mass media is passed. This decision did not enter validity and is not final agrees to the procedure established by the law. I will not give any detailed comments before end as the end result of business matters, and it while is not present.
- is good. Your business is constructed on image, on a name, on a brand. Criminal case did not lead to outflow of clients?
- No. No conceptual changes in client structure of business happened. In legal business, as well as in any other kind of , the objective reputation of the person based on personal acquaintance and experience of the client with the performer has defining value. It not shop. The lawyer judge not only as somebody the tool of the solution of problems, but also as the person, that is and on achievements in the professional sphere and how he behaves in a concrete life situation. Representatives of business and the power, with whom we work in the sphere of (with some more than ten years), are guided not by inconsistent press releases, and by the concrete facts and understand that my business, first, to put it mildly, directly is not connected with and the more so with the current activity of agency, secondly, as I talked earlier, this sense is not complete, so, and to draw conclusions prematurely. In the dry rest, unless someone can tell, what during consideration of the case I behaved unworthy? Unless I stipulated someone, trying to soften the fate, despite persistent offers? If the person knows me personally, and this overwhelming number of clients of my business, I do not think that he can notice any changes in my relation to business and to my obligations to clients.
- you are engaged including and on you a certain crape of corruptibility and an ambiguity extends. Thus you and at your partner Geller Mark had a reputation of lawyers who are able "to solve" affairs with arbitration, prosecutor's office, antimonopoly service. Such "contractual" lawyers at whom everything is grabbed.
- People often attribute to opponents that they want to see, instead of that is actually. They want that we were not professionals, and here such "reshalami", and all of them are farther events and the facts artificially adjust to this image, hang the corresponding labels. And still: not all can admit to themselves the mistakes, nonprofessionalism, that they were bypassed in any basic dispute simply better by the trained staff. It is so psychologically easier to justify failure: pier, I was right, but "solved" me went round on a curve goat. The professional who anyway understands both spirit, and a law letter can give to an outcome of legal procedures a competent and objective assessment only. All the rest – no more than superficial perception of a situation. That arbitration that Federal Antimonopoly Service are the closed establishments, there professional lawyers work at a constant basis and there the narrowly professional issues demanding special knowledge within concrete specializations are resolved. I, for example, am not engaged in neither criminal cases, nor tax disputes, still something not connected with the main specialization. If I ten years day by day work with , it is reasonable to assume that I understand this question a little and I can inform the position both to judges, and to antimonopoly service. The question of coordination or verification of documents or the forthcoming dispute by specialists of authorized body or until giving is a complete nonsense. To take the same antimonopoly service: there experts are enormously loaded and within the official duties are compelled to process huge arrays of information daily. Let's present that someone comes from the street and brings documents for a certain informal … Who will be engaged in it? What for? you can imagine the official loaded to a limit who instead of execution of official duties which does not have the end and edge, works with commercial documents on a voluntary basis? From the point of view of financial instruments here they essentially do not work. The same Alexander Borovkov, as the head, the absolute guarantor of financial independence of service, and it for anybody not a secret. Any movements in this direction except problems cannot turn back anything.
We, certainly, coordinate the position with antimonopoly service as the regulator of the sphere of , but upside-down. Process looks as follows: a certain decision on concrete dispute is published, precedent is created – we right there write down it in the corresponding instruction, the module, parameter of our work. We carefully work with own and others experience on prospect. Why the impression of a certain coherence is often made? When I as the professional estimate the document, for me it no more than a mosaic, simply a set of legal modules. And when on all modules we already worked within administrative consideration, had legal proceedings, we have steady, in time repeating result, I speak: yes, our position is coordinated with antimonopoly service. Upon. When you from experience know that in the father-in-law there can be only a variation from ten specific questions ten concrete answers on which by practical consideration you already established, it is possible and without looking in the text remorselessly to tell: I will precisely pass this test. However it does not mean at all that the author of the test showed it to you or secretly whispered answers.
- That is you give not a secret guarantee, and professional, following from experience and the previous practice?
- Certainly. It is based not that my checked in Federal Antimonopoly Service or in arbitration, no. I know that it so on the basis of the professional mosaic, enormous experience, including mostly negative (the lost cases). And people from outside have a feeling that we "reshaly". How so its forecast comes true how it can give a guarantee? If the client puts a hand in water, I can give a guarantee that in 99% of cases his hand becomes wet, is a guarantee of the same order.
- confuse Professionalism to sorcery?
- (Laughs. ) Yes. And that is paradoxical, so think not only competitors, but also clients. After all the lawyer has no own affairs, his activity is always success or failure of the client. And when the person starts boasting of the success on public, it thus always boasts also of the lawyer ("We with my lawyer carried the case, won"), and ideas and fairy tales which interlocutors often take in all good faith quite often begin. So the loss of reputation is not always a consequence of negative information, often to us spoil image on a positive.
- of Times we started talking about the hearings connected with you and your professional activity, I cannot but ask one more question. After withdrawal from the region of team Mikhail Men spoke about that, as you much, and Geller Mark transfer business to Moscow, and to our area show less and less interest. Your comment.
- apropos I cannot make comments on Geller Mark
- Quite so. The left team was very creative and often approved new models of work, interaction of different institutes of society and the state, and we were demanded, it was interesting to us to work in constantly changing legal and actual paradigm. This and professional development, and opportunity to apply new models and the directions in own business. Now, at all without making a complaint to the existing power, we state the lowered activity, including in law-making, law-enforcement activity, respectively, we will redirect the efforts and resources and to other regions, and to other spheres.
- But Ivanov do not leave?
- No. Bazovo we are here.
of the Photo: Gertye Varvara
Lately the lawyer Shamin Kirill causes keen interest in the Ivanovo beau monde: various hearings connected and with his person, and with criminal case, and with the professional moments go. We decided that better than the most Shamin Kirill questions of it will be not answered by anybody to
- Shamin Kirill , let's begin with the personal: against you criminal case was brought and you any time were under house arrest. In what stage process now?
- At the moment business is in a condition of preparation for the appeal appeal, my lawyers work in a planned mode. It would be desirable to place accents at once: business began with a grandiose sensation, with unnatural for such category put fireworks in the press and the most various, sometimes absurd comments. However now the facts are as follows: it is a question of an offense of small weight, directly case was considered in world where hear cases on small household disputes and offenses of the minimum public danger. Today the intermediate decision on penalty imposing on me of three million rubles about what also wrote local mass media is passed. This decision did not enter validity and is not final agrees to the procedure established by the law. I will not give any detailed comments before end as the end result of business matters, and it while is not present.
- is good. Your business is constructed on image, on a name, on a brand. Criminal case did not lead to outflow of clients?
- No. No conceptual changes in client structure of business happened. In legal business, as well as in any other kind of , the objective reputation of the person based on personal acquaintance and experience of the client with the performer has defining value. It not shop. The lawyer judge not only as somebody the tool of the solution of problems, but also as the person, that is and on achievements in the professional sphere and how he behaves in a concrete life situation. Representatives of business and the power, with whom we work in the sphere of (with some more than ten years), are guided not by inconsistent press releases, and by the concrete facts and understand that my business, first, to put it mildly, directly is not connected with and the more so with the current activity of agency, secondly, as I talked earlier, this sense is not complete, so, and to draw conclusions prematurely. In the dry rest, unless someone can tell, what during consideration of the case I behaved unworthy? Unless I stipulated someone, trying to soften the fate, despite persistent offers? If the person knows me personally, and this overwhelming number of clients of my business, I do not think that he can notice any changes in my relation to business and to my obligations to clients.
- you are engaged including and on you a certain crape of corruptibility and an ambiguity extends. Thus you and at your partner Geller Mark had a reputation of lawyers who are able "to solve" affairs with arbitration, prosecutor's office, antimonopoly service. Such "contractual" lawyers at whom everything is grabbed.
- People often attribute to opponents that they want to see, instead of that is actually. They want that we were not professionals, and here such "reshalami", and all of them are farther events and the facts artificially adjust to this image, hang the corresponding labels. And still: not all can admit to themselves the mistakes, nonprofessionalism, that they were bypassed in any basic dispute simply better by the trained staff. It is so psychologically easier to justify failure: pier, I was right, but "solved" me went round on a curve goat. The professional who anyway understands both spirit, and a law letter can give to an outcome of legal procedures a competent and objective assessment only. All the rest – no more than superficial perception of a situation. That arbitration that Federal Antimonopoly Service are the closed establishments, there professional lawyers work at a constant basis and there the narrowly professional issues demanding special knowledge within concrete specializations are resolved. I, for example, am not engaged in neither criminal cases, nor tax disputes, still something not connected with the main specialization. If I ten years day by day work with , it is reasonable to assume that I understand this question a little and I can inform the position both to judges, and to antimonopoly service. The question of coordination or verification of documents or the forthcoming dispute by specialists of authorized body or until giving is a complete nonsense. To take the same antimonopoly service: there experts are enormously loaded and within the official duties are compelled to process huge arrays of information daily. Let's present that someone comes from the street and brings documents for a certain informal … Who will be engaged in it? What for? you can imagine the official loaded to a limit who instead of execution of official duties which does not have the end and edge, works with commercial documents on a voluntary basis? From the point of view of financial instruments here they essentially do not work. The same Alexander Borovkov, as the head, the absolute guarantor of financial independence of service, and it for anybody not a secret. Any movements in this direction except problems cannot turn back anything.
We, certainly, coordinate the position with antimonopoly service as the regulator of the sphere of , but upside-down. Process looks as follows: a certain decision on concrete dispute is published, precedent is created – we right there write down it in the corresponding instruction, the module, parameter of our work. We carefully work with own and others experience on prospect. Why the impression of a certain coherence is often made? When I as the professional estimate the document, for me it no more than a mosaic, simply a set of legal modules. And when on all modules we already worked within administrative consideration, had legal proceedings, we have steady, in time repeating result, I speak: yes, our position is coordinated with antimonopoly service. Upon. When you from experience know that in the father-in-law there can be only a variation from ten specific questions ten concrete answers on which by practical consideration you already established, it is possible and without looking in the text remorselessly to tell: I will precisely pass this test. However it does not mean at all that the author of the test showed it to you or secretly whispered answers.
- That is you give not a secret guarantee, and professional, following from experience and the previous practice?
- Certainly. It is based not that my checked in Federal Antimonopoly Service or in arbitration, no. I know that it so on the basis of the professional mosaic, enormous experience, including mostly negative (the lost cases). And people from outside have a feeling that we "reshaly". How so its forecast comes true how it can give a guarantee? If the client puts a hand in water, I can give a guarantee that in 99% of cases his hand becomes wet, is a guarantee of the same order.
- confuse Professionalism to sorcery?
- (Laughs. ) Yes. And that is paradoxical, so think not only competitors, but also clients. After all the lawyer has no own affairs, his activity is always success or failure of the client. And when the person starts boasting of the success on public, it thus always boasts also of the lawyer ("We with my lawyer carried the case, won"), and ideas and fairy tales which interlocutors often take in all good faith quite often begin. So the loss of reputation is not always a consequence of negative information, often to us spoil image on a positive.
- of Times we started talking about the hearings connected with you and your professional activity, I cannot but ask one more question. After withdrawal from the region of team Mikhail Men spoke about that, as you much, and Geller Mark transfer business to Moscow, and to our area show less and less interest. Your comment.
- apropos I cannot make comments on Geller Mark
- Quite so. The left team was very creative and often approved new models of work, interaction of different institutes of society and the state, and we were demanded, it was interesting to us to work in constantly changing legal and actual paradigm. This and professional development, and opportunity to apply new models and the directions in own business. Now, at all without making a complaint to the existing power, we state the lowered activity, including in law-making, law-enforcement activity, respectively, we will redirect the efforts and resources and to other regions, and to other spheres.
- But Ivanov do not leave?
- No. Bazovo we are here.
Source: "1000 copies" No. 132