Thousands in Kazan Debate Attorneys' Monopoly and AI in Justice

Kazan Legal Forum 2025: Attorneys' Monopoly Debated, AI's Role in Justice Defined

Kazan again served as a legal hub, gathering about 1,500 participants from 28 countries. Organizers and city officials stressed the forum's growing weight for national legal policy and practice.

Attorneys' Monopoly: A Draft That Needs Work

A central thread was the draft proposal to require courtroom representatives to hold attorney status. The pitch: higher standards, clearer accountability.

Pavel Krasheninnikov, head of the State Duma Committee on State Building and Legislation, cautioned that the current concept needs serious revision. In its present form, it could hurt both institutional efficiency and citizens' access to legal help.

Legal Education: Fewer Diplomas, Open Questions on Quality

Taliya Khabrieva emphasized steady evolution over abrupt shifts. She argued the legal system remains competitive and adaptive, noting recent pressures have pushed growth in social legislation and guarantees.

Vladimir Gruzdev highlighted a stark contraction in institutions issuing law diplomas-from 1,300 in the early 2000s to about 600 today. The market is still flooded with graduates from non-specialized programs, eroding trust and outcomes.

Krasheninnikov added that published blacklists and whitelists of universities are meant to guide families and employers. Classical universities remain a safer bet, but the broader fight for quality continues.

Law's Pace vs. Technology's Pace

Andrey Klishas pointed to a persistent lag: AI and digital processes are moving faster than legal definitions and enforcement capacity. Even terminology is behind, making precise regulation and prosecution difficult.

AI in Justice: Useful Assistant, Not an Arbiter

Ilgiz Gilazov framed AI as a drafting and research tool, not a subject of legal relations. Declaring guilt or innocence, he stressed, belongs to a human decision-maker with judgment and a sense of justice.

Rustem Zagidullin expects AI to permeate legal workflows but questioned its place in binding decisions. Moral reasoning and "internal convictions," central to judging, are not attributes we can credibly assign to a model.

Gulnara Sergeeva warned against making AI outputs compulsory "like protocols." Large models can vary by prompt; outputs may conflict or be incorrect. Lawyers must validate sources, verify citations, and own the analysis.

For comparative context on standards, see the Council of Europe's AI convention and the OECD AI Principles.

What Legal Teams Should Do Now

• Map exposure to an attorneys' monopoly: case intake, client pricing, regional coverage, and co-counsel strategies if non-attorney reps are curtailed.
• Institute an AI policy: approved tools, client-consent protocols, privacy rules, source citation, and mandatory human review before filing.
• Tune workflows where AI adds value: template drafting, precedent retrieval, checklists, and document comparisons with human validation.
• Raise the bar on training: brief workshops on prompt quality, fact-checking, and citation hygiene. For focused upskilling, review practical AI courses by job.
• Tighten hiring standards: prioritize specialized legal programs, use trial assignments, and pair juniors with structured mentorship.
• Evidence discipline: document AI usage, keep an audit trail, and segregate confidential data from external systems.

Signals to Watch

• Revisions to the attorneys' monopoly draft: definitions of legal representation, exceptions, and transition periods.
• Accreditation and exam shifts: university criteria, bar/bench assessments, and practice-readiness benchmarks.
• Court practice notes on AI: acceptance of AI-assisted filings, disclosure duties, and sanctions for unverified outputs.
• Agency policy: whether investigative bodies treat AI as optional tooling or gatekeeping infrastructure.

The takeaway is straightforward: keep human judgment at the core, upgrade your team's systems and skills, and prepare for credentialing rules that could redraw representation in court.