Shuvalov’s former lawyer, a person involved in the YUKOS case, Pavel Ivlev, introduced the public to the details of the business of the First Deputy Prime Minister’s family. Colleagues accuse him of violating attorney-client privilege; Ivlev refers to the principle of morality

The scandal surrounding the business of Igor Shuvalov’s family continues to gain momentum. On Wednesday evening, Artem Dymskoy, managing partner of the ALM Feldmans law office, issued a statement in which he named the alleged initiator of the information attack on the first deputy prime minister.

This role, Dymskoy claims, was played by lawyer Pavel Ivlev, formerly an adviser to Mikhail Khodorkovsky. In Russia, back in 2005, he was arrested in absentia on charges of oil theft and laundering proceeds from its sale.

Ivlev previously provided legal services to the Shuvalov family, Dymskoy writes. His colleague considered the lawyer's exposure of the entrepreneurial successes of the First Deputy Prime Minister as an attempt to manipulate public opinion through an incorrect interpretation of the facts.

According to ALM Feldmans, of which Ivlev was previously a partner (and is still listed as such on the official website of the bureau), Ivlev “deliberately manipulates the facts and circumstances that actually existed in such a way that they have a different meaning that is beneficial to him, and does this solely in connection with its political goals and objectives.” Dymskoy focuses specifically on his colleague’s political ambitions: this is “incompatible with the status of a lawyer.” The statement also mentions certain “illegal commercial activities” related to YUKOS.

Ultimately, the managing partner of ALM Feldmans accuses Ivlev of “flagrant violation of the law on advocacy” for transferring documents about clients. The Bureau intends to appeal to the Moscow Bar Association with a demand to deprive Ivlev of his professional status.

Ivlev, in response to Dymsky’s accusations, distributed an open letter in which he rejected all the claims of his colleagues against him. He did not openly admit his involvement in the leak. In any case, attorney-client privilege was not violated: neither the Deputy Prime Minister nor the official’s wife Olga were his clients, since “there was no agreement on the provision of legal assistance between ALM Feldmans and the Shuvalovs,” the author explains.

In addition, the lawyer “has the right to use the information communicated to him by the client to the extent that he considers reasonably necessary for... his defense in the disciplinary proceedings or criminal case initiated against him,” recalls Ivlev.

The third and main reason for the leaking of sensational materials to journalists is the thesis of paragraph 1 of Art. 10 of the Code of Professional Ethics for Lawyers: “Law and morality in the legal profession are above the will of the client. Any wishes, requests or instructions of the principal aimed at non-compliance with the law or violation of the rules provided for by this Code cannot be fulfilled by the lawyer.”

“On the instructions and in the interests of Shuvalov, on his behalf and at his expense,” Ivlev “managed the bank account of Sevenkey Ltd., negotiated with Evgeny Shvidler, Gallagher Holding Ltd., OJSC Nafta-Moscow and other counterparties.” The lawyer began to have doubts about the legitimacy of his client’s transactions in February 2004. However, the “YUKOS case” took away Ivlev’s time to “immediately assess the financial transactions of Sevenkey Ltd.”

“I hope that a public discussion by the media of the sources of income of a high-ranking civil servant, the first deputy prime minister of the country, will help strengthen law and order in Russia,” the lawyer concludes.

On Wednesday, we recall, the newspapers The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times gained access to materials indicating that the trust fund, the beneficiary of which is Shuvalov’s wife, earned tens of millions of dollars on transactions with shares of Gazprom and Sibneft through the mediation of structures Suleiman Kerimov and Alisher Usmanov. The Deputy Prime Minister himself called the suspicions against him groundless: there was no formal conflict of interest in the purchases of securities, and the wealth he earned allows him to guarantee the official’s independence from various influence groups.

In an interview with Slon.Ru , Dymskoy said that only ordinary people consider the $80-100 million income of the Shuvalov family from controversial transactions to be “too lucky.” In reality, by investing in Gazprom shares or the purchase of a stake in Corus by Alisher Usmanov’s structures, the managers of the trust, the beneficiary of which was the official’s wife, were taking risks and could not know in advance how successful their investments would be, the lawyer outlined his version. The transactions were completely legal and brought “astronomical” tax revenues to the budget, the managing partner of ALM Feldmans is sure.

His former immediate supervisor in the Russian Presidential Administration, Alexander Voloshin, also came to Shuvalov’s defense. In his blog, he described the disgraced official as “a straightforward, consistent and principled person with progressive views.” The First Deputy Prime Minister “has always advocated demonopolization of the economy, privatization, a consistent reduction in state intervention in the economy and transparency of state regulation, and the strengthening and development of local self-government,” Voloshin listed. Shuvalov “has plenty of opponents and ill-wishers,” so “an information campaign against him has unfolded right now - during the period of discussion of the structure and composition of the future government,” suggests the former head of the Kremlin administration.

Voloshin considers the insider suspicions to be groundless: “back in early 2004, the country’s president, members of the government, the leaders of Gazprom itself, analysts from investment banks, and securities market participants spoke with confidence about the upcoming liberalization of the Gazprom share market.” Thus, “for any potential investor this was absolutely open information” and “Igor did not have any secret knowledge different from what was known to everyone at the time of acquiring the shares,” the ex-head of the AP is sure.

Mikhail Barshchevsky , lawyer , representative of the Russian government in higher courts

As far as I understand the situation, Pavel Ivlev should be expelled from the legal profession, since he violated the holy of holies - attorney-client privilege. But this is only if Igor Shuvalov and his wife were really clients of ALM Feldmans. But it’s difficult for me to speak here. This is a matter of fact - either it was or it wasn’t. If so, then attorney-client privilege has been violated. If he wasn’t, then where did Ivlev get these documents? If from another lawyer, then the other lawyer is guilty, and Ivlev himself violated corporate ethics.

The statement that law and morality are higher than the will of the principal is bullshit. Under no circumstances may attorney-client privilege be violated. The only exception may be a situation when a lawyer becomes aware that his client is preparing a crime in which many people may die.

Henry Reznik, President of the Moscow Bar Association

Frankly speaking, I don’t even know whether Pavel Ivlev is a member of the Bar Association. There have been no complaints against him yet. As for attorney-client privilege, it is sacred and indefinite. It can be violated only if the client accuses the lawyer of some violations and only to the extent necessary for the defense, as well as if a criminal case has been opened against the lawyer.

Shuvalov's past and lawyer's ethics