IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Assessment of Feasibility of Potential Bar Monopoly in Russia


  • Vereshchagin, Alexander

    () (Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration)


The article explores the issue of regulation in the market of court representation services. It draws upon a variety of comparative law data which is usually neglected or distorted in current discussions. The author is skeptical regarding the long-cherished idea of the bar to introduce bar monopoly in the Russian Federation. In particular, he shows that such monopoly is far from being a universal phenomena — many developed countries lack this institution, at least in some areas of judicial disputes. The author comes to conclusion that economic, legal and political arguments in favour of the bar monopoly are weak, and suggests a number of alternative measures. Instead of the bar monopoly, in civil disputes an emphasis should be made on ex post control — by way of disbarment (suspension of unscrupulous suppliers of legal services as soon as they committed certain violations). It is proposed to establish free admittance to the bar for all holders of university and scholarly degrees in law; in case of violation of laws or professional morals they may be suspended for a certain period of time or for life, depending on the gravity of the offence, in which case they are to be put on public electronic register (“black list”) and thus lose the right to represent in courts anyone except themselves or close relatives. Besides, the author argues for the right of self-representation being preserved for all, but this should be balanced by a substantial increase in court fees (up to the level of economically similar countries) in order to reduce the number of “frivolous suits”.

Suggested Citation

  • Vereshchagin, Alexander, 2017. "The Assessment of Feasibility of Potential Bar Monopoly in Russia," Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 2, pages 152-179, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:rnp:ecopol:ep1717

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Agency Problems and Residual Claims," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 327-349, June.
    2. Torsten Persson & Guido Tabellini, 2002. "Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262661314, January.
    3. Jean Tirole, 2006. "The Theory of Corporate Finance," Post-Print hal-00173191, HAL.
    4. Li Hao & Wing Suen, 2009. "Viewpoint: Decision-making in committees," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 42(2), pages 359-392, May.
    5. Jeffrey S. Rosenthal & Martin J. Osborne & Matthew A. Turner, 2000. "Meetings with Costly Participation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 927-943, September.
    6. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Separation of Ownership and Control," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 301-325, June.
    7. Hongbin Cai, 2009. "Costly participation and heterogeneous preferences in informational committees," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(1), pages 173-189.
    8. K. Sonin & I. Khovanskaya., 2009. "A Political Economy Model of a Research University," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 7.
    9. Willam O. Brown, 1997. "University Governance and Academic Tenure: A Property Rights Explanation," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 153(3), pages 441-441, September.
    10. Gordon C. Winston, 1997. "Why Can't a College be More Like a Firm?," Williams Project on the Economics of Higher Education DP-42, Department of Economics, Williams College.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    bar monopoly; courts; legal market;

    JEL classification:

    • K4 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior
    • L84 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Personal, Professional, and Business Services
    • N43 - Economic History - - Government, War, Law, International Relations, and Regulation - - - Europe: Pre-1913
    • N44 - Economic History - - Government, War, Law, International Relations, and Regulation - - - Europe: 1913-


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rnp:ecopol:ep1717. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (RANEPA maintainer). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.