Second Legal Opinion from a Russian Lawyer
An independent look at your case when you want to understand not only what to do next, but why doing it actually makes sense.
There comes a point when you already have a lawyer, the case is moving forward, documents are being filed, hearings are taking place, and yet, for some reason, you do not feel more confident about what is happening but less. Or the court has already made a decision and you are being told that you need to appeal immediately. Or a new document has suddenly appeared which seems, at least at first sight, to change everything. Or you are being advised to settle, change your position, give up part of your claim or make some other decision that may be difficult to undo later, and the explanation sounds perfectly reasonable, but there is still that uncomfortable feeling that before taking the next step it might be a good idea to stop, put everything on the table and have someone look at the whole case again.
That is exactly what a second legal opinion is for.
I review the case independently of the position that has already been taken, looking at what that position is actually based on, where its weak points may be, what has already happened in the proceedings and, most importantly, what options are still available now. This does not mean that I will necessarily discover that your current lawyer has been doing everything wrong. Quite possibly I will tell you exactly the opposite: the strategy makes sense and there is no reason to change it. I have never thought that the value of a second opinion should be measured by how many mistakes one lawyer can find in another lawyer’s work. What matters much more is that, after the review, you understand what is actually happening in your case and why you are being advised to do what you are being advised to do.
There comes a point when you already have a lawyer, the case is moving forward, documents are being filed, hearings are taking place, and yet, for some reason, you do not feel more confident about what is happening but less. Or the court has already made a decision and you are being told that you need to appeal immediately. Or a new document has suddenly appeared which seems, at least at first sight, to change everything. Or you are being advised to settle, change your position, give up part of your claim or make some other decision that may be difficult to undo later, and the explanation sounds perfectly reasonable, but there is still that uncomfortable feeling that before taking the next step it might be a good idea to stop, put everything on the table and have someone look at the whole case again.
That is exactly what a second legal opinion is for.
I review the case independently of the position that has already been taken, looking at what that position is actually based on, where its weak points may be, what has already happened in the proceedings and, most importantly, what options are still available now. This does not mean that I will necessarily discover that your current lawyer has been doing everything wrong. Quite possibly I will tell you exactly the opposite: the strategy makes sense and there is no reason to change it. I have never thought that the value of a second opinion should be measured by how many mistakes one lawyer can find in another lawyer’s work. What matters much more is that, after the review, you understand what is actually happening in your case and why you are being advised to do what you are being advised to do.
Independent case review: from RUB 50,000.
“But I already have a lawyer”
I hear this all the time, usually with a slight sense of guilt: “I have a good lawyer, I trust them, I just want to ask someone else.” As though the second lawyer in this story automatically becomes a lover and the very fact of speaking to them now requires an explanation to the family. In reality, there is no conflict here at all. If the matter is serious, it is perfectly normal to want another professional to look at a decision that may affect your money, your property, your business, your freedom or several years of your life.
Nor do I approach somebody else’s case with the intention of proving that another lawyer has made a mistake. When a lawyer has been working on a matter for months, and sometimes for years, they know its entire history, they remember why certain decisions were made and they inevitably look at every new development through a structure that has already been built. I receive the documents for the first time, which gives me the luxury of asking a question that sometimes turns out to be the most useful one of all: why was this particular strategy chosen in the first place? Sometimes, after reading the case, the answer is completely obvious and I tell the client that I see no reason to change anything. Sometimes questions begin to appear. And that is when it makes sense to look further.
Nor do I approach somebody else’s case with the intention of proving that another lawyer has made a mistake. When a lawyer has been working on a matter for months, and sometimes for years, they know its entire history, they remember why certain decisions were made and they inevitably look at every new development through a structure that has already been built. I receive the documents for the first time, which gives me the luxury of asking a question that sometimes turns out to be the most useful one of all: why was this particular strategy chosen in the first place? Sometimes, after reading the case, the answer is completely obvious and I tell the client that I see no reason to change anything. Sometimes questions begin to appear. And that is when it makes sense to look further.
When the strategy starts raising questions
A client is not supposed to know procedural codes, remember every deadline or understand the difference between every possible application and motion, because if that were required, there would probably be very little point in hiring a lawyer in the first place. But a client does have the right to understand what their lawyer is trying to achieve, what the position is based on, what the risks are and what is supposed to happen if events do not go according to plan.
I am always slightly wary of the phrase “just trust the professional” when what it really means is that nobody intends to explain anything. There are, of course, excellent lawyers who speak as though they pay for every extra word out of their own pocket, and being talkative has never made anyone a better lawyer, but if you have reached the point where you cannot explain even to yourself what is happening in your case, why certain steps are being taken and what exactly you are waiting for at the next hearing, wanting another professional opinion seems entirely reasonable to me.
The same applies when the strategy suddenly changes. Real litigation is not carved in stone: new documents appear, the other side changes its tactics, the court asks questions nobody expected and circumstances emerge that simply did not exist when the case began. But if you are suddenly being advised to abandon a substantial part of your claim, admit an important fact, accept a settlement or make another decision whose consequences may be very difficult to reverse later, it is worth understanding not only why you are being advised to do it, but what happens if you do not.
I am always slightly wary of the phrase “just trust the professional” when what it really means is that nobody intends to explain anything. There are, of course, excellent lawyers who speak as though they pay for every extra word out of their own pocket, and being talkative has never made anyone a better lawyer, but if you have reached the point where you cannot explain even to yourself what is happening in your case, why certain steps are being taken and what exactly you are waiting for at the next hearing, wanting another professional opinion seems entirely reasonable to me.
The same applies when the strategy suddenly changes. Real litigation is not carved in stone: new documents appear, the other side changes its tactics, the court asks questions nobody expected and circumstances emerge that simply did not exist when the case began. But if you are suddenly being advised to abandon a substantial part of your claim, admit an important fact, accept a settlement or make another decision whose consequences may be very difficult to reverse later, it is worth understanding not only why you are being advised to do it, but what happens if you do not.
The case was lost. So now we appeal?
It is almost an automatic reaction. If we do not like the judgment, we appeal it. And if the appeal happens to be forty-seven pages long, tells the entire story again from the very beginning and points out several times just how badly the first court got everything wrong, presumably the chances of success should increase in direct proportion to the number of pages.
Unfortunately, litigation does not work quite like that.
After an unfavourable judgment, I prefer to read the judgment itself and the case materials before discussing an appeal, because first we need to understand what exactly we believe is wrong with the court’s conclusions, which facts the court established, what evidence it relied on, which arguments it considered, which it ignored and whether there is actually something on which a meaningful appeal can be built. Having the right to appeal and having reasonable grounds to expect a judgment to be changed are, after all, not quite the same thing.
Sometimes, after doing that analysis, I see good reasons to continue. Sometimes the prospects are considerably more modest than the client would like them to be. And sometimes a person comes to me precisely because somebody has already told them, “Don’t worry, we’ll get it overturned on appeal.” After more than twenty years in legal practice, promises about knowing in advance what a court is going to decide impress me considerably less than arguments and documents.
Unfortunately, litigation does not work quite like that.
After an unfavourable judgment, I prefer to read the judgment itself and the case materials before discussing an appeal, because first we need to understand what exactly we believe is wrong with the court’s conclusions, which facts the court established, what evidence it relied on, which arguments it considered, which it ignored and whether there is actually something on which a meaningful appeal can be built. Having the right to appeal and having reasonable grounds to expect a judgment to be changed are, after all, not quite the same thing.
Sometimes, after doing that analysis, I see good reasons to continue. Sometimes the prospects are considerably more modest than the client would like them to be. And sometimes a person comes to me precisely because somebody has already told them, “Don’t worry, we’ll get it overturned on appeal.” After more than twenty years in legal practice, promises about knowing in advance what a court is going to decide impress me considerably less than arguments and documents.
“But they haven’t seen this document yet”
New documents have an extraordinary quality: the moment somebody discovers a piece of paper that has not previously been discussed, it immediately acquires the status of the decisive evidence that will finally explain everything, after which the other side will presumably have no option but to admit defeat, preferably before the next hearing.
Sometimes I open that document and realise that, yes, the situation has just become considerably more interesting. And sometimes it turns out that the document proves something nobody is disputing, relates to an issue the court is not actually deciding or simply looks far more convincing at the kitchen table during a conversation with relatives than it does when placed inside a court file. There is nothing strange about that, because a client sees a document through the story they have lived, while a lawyer has to ask a much less exciting question: what exactly does this document prove, and what legal significance does that have right now?
So yes, a new document, new evidence or changed circumstances may be an excellent reason to look at the case again. I would simply prefer to begin with analysis rather than with announcing victory.
Sometimes I open that document and realise that, yes, the situation has just become considerably more interesting. And sometimes it turns out that the document proves something nobody is disputing, relates to an issue the court is not actually deciding or simply looks far more convincing at the kitchen table during a conversation with relatives than it does when placed inside a court file. There is nothing strange about that, because a client sees a document through the story they have lived, while a lawyer has to ask a much less exciting question: what exactly does this document prove, and what legal significance does that have right now?
So yes, a new document, new evidence or changed circumstances may be an excellent reason to look at the case again. I would simply prefer to begin with analysis rather than with announcing victory.
When the cost of a mistake is too high
I do not believe that every legal matter needs a second lawyer, a third lawyer and a small legal council that gathers every Thursday to discuss developments. There are plenty of cases where the strategy is clear, the client trusts their lawyer, the work is progressing normally and another professional review would simply be unnecessary.
But there are criminal cases, substantial property disputes, inheritance matters, real estate and business disputes, serious family conflicts, decisions about settlements and appeals where the consequences of one wrong step may be completely out of proportion to the cost of having another experienced lawyer look at the case. In situations like these, checking the position one more time does not strike me as distrustful or excessive. It strikes me as rational.
A second opinion is not a way of buying a guarantee. I cannot give you one, just as no lawyer who takes the profession seriously can guarantee what a court, an investigator or another party will ultimately do. What a second opinion can give you is the opportunity to make an important decision while understanding not only what you hope to gain from it, but also what you may be risking.
But there are criminal cases, substantial property disputes, inheritance matters, real estate and business disputes, serious family conflicts, decisions about settlements and appeals where the consequences of one wrong step may be completely out of proportion to the cost of having another experienced lawyer look at the case. In situations like these, checking the position one more time does not strike me as distrustful or excessive. It strikes me as rational.
A second opinion is not a way of buying a guarantee. I cannot give you one, just as no lawyer who takes the profession seriously can guarantee what a court, an investigator or another party will ultimately do. What a second opinion can give you is the opportunity to make an important decision while understanding not only what you hope to gain from it, but also what you may be risking.
How I review another lawyer’s case
The first thing I try to do is forget the client’s story for a while. This may not sound particularly welcoming, but years of practice have taught me that otherwise it is surprisingly easy to start reading documents with the answer already sitting comfortably in your head.
People tell their stories as they have lived them, which is entirely natural: they know who deceived whom, who started it, who is really to blame and who, as it inevitably turns out, “has always been that kind of person anyway.” A case file tends to be rather less emotional. It contains claims, objections, evidence, court decisions, procedural documents and rules of law, while the phrase “but surely it’s obvious that he’s lying” has not yet become an independent form of evidence, however convenient that might occasionally be.
So I read first. I look at what is actually supported by the documents, what the other side is saying, which arguments have already been used, what decisions have already been made and why, where the position looks strong and where questions begin to appear, and only after that do I return to the client’s story, which by then sometimes looks rather different.
That, really, is the point of an independent review. I do not need to invent an entirely new strategy simply to justify the existence of a second opinion. I may see another option, I may notice a particular risk, I may suggest a specific question worth discussing with your current lawyer, or I may tell you that the existing strategy looks reasonable and I see no reason to change it. The last answer somehow sounds like the least exciting one, although professionally it is no less valuable than any of the others.
My job is not to find another lawyer’s mistake. My job is to understand the case.
People tell their stories as they have lived them, which is entirely natural: they know who deceived whom, who started it, who is really to blame and who, as it inevitably turns out, “has always been that kind of person anyway.” A case file tends to be rather less emotional. It contains claims, objections, evidence, court decisions, procedural documents and rules of law, while the phrase “but surely it’s obvious that he’s lying” has not yet become an independent form of evidence, however convenient that might occasionally be.
So I read first. I look at what is actually supported by the documents, what the other side is saying, which arguments have already been used, what decisions have already been made and why, where the position looks strong and where questions begin to appear, and only after that do I return to the client’s story, which by then sometimes looks rather different.
That, really, is the point of an independent review. I do not need to invent an entirely new strategy simply to justify the existence of a second opinion. I may see another option, I may notice a particular risk, I may suggest a specific question worth discussing with your current lawyer, or I may tell you that the existing strategy looks reasonable and I see no reason to change it. The last answer somehow sounds like the least exciting one, although professionally it is no less valuable than any of the others.
My job is not to find another lawyer’s mistake. My job is to understand the case.
Have doubts about the current strategy?
If you want to understand whether the position already taken in your case makes sense and what risks may come with it, send me a short message explaining what is happening and what stage the case has reached. I will tell you which materials I need to see before I can analyse it properly.
What I will need
I do not ask clients to decide for themselves which twenty pages out of a two-hundred-page case file are important and which ones I can safely ignore, because practice cures lawyers of that particular luxury fairly quickly. The document a client considers the final and irrefutable proof that they are right sometimes turns out to be perfectly ordinary, while the paper tucked somewhere near the end of the file with the words “this probably isn’t important” suddenly changes half the questions.
First, tell me briefly what has happened and what stage the case has reached, and I will then tell you which materials I need. If there are already court decisions, I will usually need to see them; if proceedings are still ongoing, I may also need pleadings filed by the parties, evidence and other documents relevant to the particular issue we are trying to check.
First, tell me briefly what has happened and what stage the case has reached, and I will then tell you which materials I need. If there are already court decisions, I will usually need to see them; if proceedings are still ongoing, I may also need pleadings filed by the parties, evidence and other documents relevant to the particular issue we are trying to check.
What you will receive
I will not tell you that everything is definitely going to be fine if the documents do not support that conclusion, and I will not promise that a case will be won simply because, after an unfavourable judgment, that is understandably what somebody wants to hear. In fact, if what you are looking for is an exclusively optimistic forecast, a second opinion may turn out to be a rather risky purchase.
After reviewing the materials, I formulate my conclusions about the case: what the existing position is actually based on, where its weak points are, what risks I see and which options for moving forward appear reasonable. We then discuss those conclusions and the questions that arise from them, and if your particular situation requires a separate written document, we agree in advance on whether it is necessary and what it should cover.
Sometimes the result will be a recommendation to reconsider the strategy, sometimes it will be several very specific questions worth discussing with your current lawyer, and sometimes it will simply be confirmation that there is no good reason to change anything.
For me, a good result of this work is quite simple: before the review, the client was saying, “I don’t understand what is happening,” and afterwards they understand where the case stands and what it makes sense to do next.
After reviewing the materials, I formulate my conclusions about the case: what the existing position is actually based on, where its weak points are, what risks I see and which options for moving forward appear reasonable. We then discuss those conclusions and the questions that arise from them, and if your particular situation requires a separate written document, we agree in advance on whether it is necessary and what it should cover.
Sometimes the result will be a recommendation to reconsider the strategy, sometimes it will be several very specific questions worth discussing with your current lawyer, and sometimes it will simply be confirmation that there is no good reason to change anything.
For me, a good result of this work is quite simple: before the review, the client was saying, “I don’t understand what is happening,” and afterwards they understand where the case stands and what it makes sense to do next.
How much does it cost?
An independent case review and second legal opinion starts from RUB 50,000.
The exact fee depends primarily on the amount of material and the complexity of the question, because there is an obvious difference between reading one judgment together with several key documents and reviewing a dispute that has been running for several years, fills several volumes and arrives with the apparently innocent request, “Could you just have a look and tell me whether everything has been done correctly?”, which in practice may mean several days of serious work.
If a full review is not necessary and the issue can be dealt with during a consultation, consultations start from RUB 10,000. If further work on the case is needed after the review, its scope and fee are agreed separately, and further work on a case starts from RUB 100,000.
The exact fee depends primarily on the amount of material and the complexity of the question, because there is an obvious difference between reading one judgment together with several key documents and reviewing a dispute that has been running for several years, fills several volumes and arrives with the apparently innocent request, “Could you just have a look and tell me whether everything has been done correctly?”, which in practice may mean several days of serious work.
If a full review is not necessary and the issue can be dealt with during a consultation, consultations start from RUB 10,000. If further work on the case is needed after the review, its scope and fee are agreed separately, and further work on a case starts from RUB 100,000.
Can everything be done remotely?
Yes. For a second opinion, what I primarily need is the case file, not the client sitting in the same room with me, so the documents can be sent electronically and, once I have reviewed them, we can discuss my conclusions and the available options remotely.
I advise on matters under Russian law, so you can ask me to review your case even if you currently live outside Russia.
I advise on matters under Russian law, so you can ask me to review your case even if you currently live outside Russia.
If you would like me to review your case
Send me a short message telling me what happened, whether you already have another lawyer, what stage the case has reached and whether any court decisions have been made. There is no need, in the very first message, to tell me the entire story of the last fifteen years or attach three hundred files without explanation; first I need to understand what the issue is, and then I will tell you what documents I need and what the scope of the work is likely to be.
For example: “I have an ongoing property division dispute, the case is currently before the court of first instance, I already have a lawyer, but I would like an independent review of the strategy.”
That is enough to start the conversation.
A second opinion does not necessarily mean changing your strategy. Sometimes it is much more important to know that there is no good reason to change it.
For example: “I have an ongoing property division dispute, the case is currently before the court of first instance, I already have a lawyer, but I would like an independent review of the strategy.”
That is enough to start the conversation.
A second opinion does not necessarily mean changing your strategy. Sometimes it is much more important to know that there is no good reason to change it.
Would you like me to review your case?
Send me a brief message on Telegram or WhatsApp. Tell me what the case is about and what stage it has reached. That is enough to start the conversation.
