The key facts
- The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation recognized that assigning a lawyer the right to recover court costs may count as payment for legal assistance
- The case was prompted by that of lawyer Oksana Feofilova: her client's claim was granted at 93%, but the courts refused her more than 450,000 rubles in compensation
- The payment amount must remain within reasonable limits, the risk of reduced compensation falls on the representative; the case has been sent for retrial
The Constitutional Court's position
In Russia, it is permissible to pay for a lawyer's services by assigning them the right to recover court costs after winning a case — this is the conclusion reached by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. According to the Constitutional Court, a client does not necessarily have to first pay the fee out of their own pocket: the assignment of the right of claim may also count as payment for legal assistance. This makes it possible to use a specialist's services even without the necessary sum of money. The risk of reduced compensation in this case falls on the representative themselves, and the position of the losing party is not worsened.
Circumstances of the case
The case was prompted by an appeal from lawyer Oksana Feofilova. In 2020, she concluded a contract with a man trying to recover his property: instead of monetary payment, the parties agreed that the representative would receive the right to recover the corresponding costs from the defendant. The claim was granted at 93%, after which Feofilova demanded to be recognized as the recipient of compensation amounting to more than 450,000 rubles. The lower courts refused, since the client had in fact not spent money on defending his interests.
The ruling and its limits
The Constitutional Court disagreed with the approach of the lower courts and emphasized that such agreements do not mean automatic reimbursement of the entire claimed amount — the payment amount must still remain within reasonable limits. The contested provision of the Civil Procedure Code was found to be consistent with the Constitution, and Feofilova's case was sent for retrial.
