Funny stories about lawyer plevako. Dynamics of legal thought Fedor Nikiforovich Plevako

One of the most famous lawyers in history is Fyodor Nikiforovich. There was no more unique speaker in Russia. Plevako’s first court speeches immediately revealed his enormous oratorical talent. Plevako often spoke out in cases of factory riots and in his speeches in defense of workers accused of resisting the authorities, rioting and destruction of factory property, aroused a feeling of compassion for unfortunate people, “exhausted by physical labor, with spiritual forces frozen from inaction, in contrast to us , darlings of fate, brought up from the cradle in the concept of goodness and in complete prosperity.” Fyodor Nikiforovich died on December 23, 1908, at the age of 67, in Moscow. Plevako was buried in front of a huge crowd of people of all walks of life and conditions in the cemetery of the Sorrowful Monastery.

Below are examples of his brilliant performances in court.

Among the pre-revolutionary lawyers, it was Plevako who was distinguished by his amazing eloquence and impeccable skill in rhetoric.

It is his speeches that are famous for the huge number of references to biblical texts, the constant study of which endowed Plevako with a keen sense of words and very accurate and calm speech. Plevako’s oratorical talent is still an interesting and insufficiently studied phenomenon. Plevako's judicial speeches were characterized by reasonableness, calmness of tone, and a deep analysis of facts and events. It is not for nothing that Plevako received the following definitions: “great orator”, “genius of speech”, “senior hero”, “metropolitan of the legal profession”, etc. He enjoyed boundless respect from both the intelligentsia and the common people.

Plevako was one of those pre-revolutionary lawyers who developed the foundations of Russian judicial rhetoric.

Popular rumor has turned the word “Plevako” into a symbol of the highest professionalism. And if someone needed a good lawyer, they would say “I’ll find myself a Gobber,” associating with this word-name the idea of a lawyer whose skill one could fully rely on.

All of Russia passed before lawyer Plevako in trials. Workers and peasants, industrialists and financiers, local nobility and princes, confessors and military men, students and revolutionaries - everyone believed in the power of his powerful word and the extraordinary nature of his personality.

Plevako lost his first case. However, from a detailed report on the case in Moskovskie Vedomosti, his name became famous, and a few days later Plevako had his first client - an unprepossessing little man with a case involving 2,000 rubles. Plevako won this case and, having earned himself a substantial sum of 200 rubles, acquired the most necessary thing at that time - his own tailcoat.

A.P. wrote about the captivating power of the Plevakin word. Chekhov: “Plevako comes up to the music stand, stares at the jury for half a minute and begins to speak. His speech is even, soft, sincere... There are many figurative expressions, good thoughts and other beauties... Diction penetrates into the very soul, fire looks out of his eyes... No matter how much Plevako talks, you can always listen to him without boredom..."

Wit, resourcefulness, instant reaction to the enemy's remarks, appropriate sarcasm - all these qualities were clearly demonstrated by the outstanding speaker.

Plevako had the habit of beginning his speech in court with the phrase: “Gentlemen, it could have been worse.” And no matter what case the lawyer came across, he did not change his phrase. One day Plevako undertook to defend a man who raped his own daughter. The hall was packed, everyone was waiting for the lawyer to begin his defense speech. Is it really from your favorite phrase? Incredible. But Plevako stood up and calmly said: “Gentlemen, it could have been worse.” And then the judge himself could not stand it. “What,” he cried, “tell me, what could be worse than this abomination?” “Your honor,” asked Plevako, “what if he raped your daughter?”

Plevako’s participation in sensational criminal trials is a separate topic for serious scientific discussion.

Just some of the cases in which Plevako brilliantly participated:

The Case of the Luthorian Peasants;
Zamyatnin case;
Lukashevich case;
The case of the Sevsky peasants;
The case of the Konshin factory workers;
Bartenev case;
Maksimenko case;
The Gruzinsky case;
The Zasulich case.

Quotes from Plevako

All famous lawyers of pre-revolutionary Russia left a deep mark not only in the history of law, but also in the history of literature. Their judicial speeches are replete with expressions that are themselves aphorisms. Many expressions of pre-revolutionary lawyers are actively used both in fiction and journalism. And here, in a special row, are Plevako’s quotes, which in certain circles have become aphorisms. Here are some of them:

“A swear word is an interjection in the folk language.”

“Behind the prosecutor is the law, and behind the lawyer is a man with his own destiny, with his own aspirations, and this man climbs onto the lawyer, seeks his protection, and it is very scary to slip with such a burden.”

“There are moments when the soul is indignant at untruths, at the sins of others, indignant in the name of the moral rules in which it believes and lives, and, indignant, strikes the one with whom it is indignant... Thus, Peter strikes a slave who insults his teacher. There is still guilt here, incontinence, a lack of love for the fallen, but the guilt is more excusable than the first, for the act is not caused by weakness, not by self-love, but by a jealous love for truth and justice.”

Fragments from the legendary trials of Fyodor Plevako.

"20 minutes"

Lawyer F.N. Plevako’s defense of the owner of a small shop, a semi-literate woman, who violated the rules on trading hours and closed the trade 20 minutes later than expected, on the eve of some religious holiday, is very well known. The court hearing in her case was scheduled for 10 o'clock. The court left 10 minutes late. Everyone was present, except for the defender - Plevako. The chairman of the court ordered to find Plevako. About 10 minutes later, Plevako slowly entered the hall, calmly sat down in the place of protection and opened his briefcase. The chairman of the court reprimanded him for being late. Then Plevako pulled out his watch, looked at it and declared that it was only five minutes past ten on his watch. The chairman pointed out to him that the wall clock was already 20 minutes past ten. Plevako asked the chairman: “What time is it on your watch, Your Excellency?” The chairman looked and replied:

At my fifteen minutes past ten. Plevako turned to the prosecutor:

What about your watch, Mr. Prosecutor?

The prosecutor, clearly wanting to cause trouble for the defense attorney, replied with a malicious smile:

It's already twenty-five minutes past ten on my watch.

He could not know what trap Plevako had set for him and how much he, the prosecutor, helped the defense.

The judicial investigation ended very quickly. Witnesses confirmed that the defendant closed the shop 20 minutes late. The prosecutor asked to find the defendant guilty. The floor was given to Plevako. The speech lasted two minutes. He declared:

The defendant was actually 20 minutes late. But, gentlemen of the jury, she is an old woman, illiterate, and doesn’t know much about watches. You and I are literate and intelligent people. How are things going with your watches? When the wall clock shows 20 minutes, Mr. Chairman has 15 minutes, and Mr. Prosecutor’s clock has 25 minutes. Of course, Mr. Prosecutor has the most reliable watch. So my watch was 20 minutes slow, so I was 20 minutes late. And I always considered my watch to be very accurate, because I have a gold, Moser watch.

So if Mr. Chairman, according to the prosecutor’s watch, opened the hearing 15 minutes late, and the defense attorney arrived 20 minutes later, then how can you demand that an illiterate tradeswoman have a better watch and have a better understanding of time than the prosecutor and I?

The jury deliberated for one minute and acquitted the defendant.

"15 years of unfair reproaches"

One day Plevako received a case regarding the murder of his woman by a man. Plevako came to the trial as usual, calm and confident of success, and without any papers or cheat sheets. And so, when it was the turn of the defense, Plevako stood up and said:

The noise in the hall began to subside. Spit again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

There was dead silence in the hall. Lawyer again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

There was a slight rustle in the hall, but the speech did not begin. Again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

Here the dissatisfied roar of the people, who had been waiting for the long-awaited spectacle, echoed in the hall. And Plevako again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

At this point the audience exploded with indignation, perceiving everything as a mockery of the respectable audience. And from the podium again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

Something unimaginable began. The hall roared along with the judge, prosecutor and assessors. And finally Plevako raised his hand, calling on the people to calm down.

Well, gentlemen, you couldn’t stand even 15 minutes of my experiment. What was it like for this unfortunate man to listen to 15 years of unfair reproaches and the irritated nagging of his grumpy woman over every insignificant trifle?!

The audience froze, then burst into delighted applause.

The man was acquitted.

"Absolution of Sins"

He once defended an elderly priest accused of adultery and theft. By all appearances, the defendant could not count on the favor of the jury. The prosecutor convincingly described the depth of the fall of the clergyman, mired in sins. Finally, Plevako rose from his place. His speech was brief: “Gentlemen of the jury! The matter is clear. The prosecutor is absolutely right in everything. The defendant committed all these crimes and confessed to them. What is there to argue about? But I draw your attention to this. A man sits in front of you who has absolved you of your sins in confession for thirty years. Now he is waiting from you: will you forgive him his sin?

There is no need to clarify that the priest was acquitted.

"30 kopecks"

The court is considering the case of an old woman, a hereditary honorary citizen, who stole a tin teapot worth 30 kopecks. The prosecutor, knowing that Plevako would defend her, decided to cut the ground from under his feet, and he himself described to the jury the difficult life of her client, which forced her to take such a step. The prosecutor even emphasized that the criminal evokes pity, not indignation. But, gentlemen, private property is sacred, the world order is based on this principle, so if you justify this grandmother, then logically you must justify the revolutionaries too. The jury nodded their heads in agreement, and then Plevako began his speech. He said: “Russia has had to endure many troubles, many trials over more than a thousand years of existence. The Pechenegs tormented her, the Polovtsians, the Tatars, the Poles. Twelve tongues attacked her and took Moscow. Russia endured everything, overcame everything, and only grew stronger and stronger from the trials. But now... The old lady stole an old teapot worth 30 kopecks. Russia, of course, cannot stand this; it will perish irrevocably..."

The old woman was acquitted.

“I took off my shoes!”

In addition to the story about the famous lawyer Plevako. He defends a man who has been accused of rape by a prostitute and is trying to get a significant amount from him in court for the injury he caused. Facts of the case: the plaintiff claims that the defendant lured her to a hotel room and raped her there. The man declares that everything was by good agreement. The last word goes to Plevako.

“Gentlemen of the jury,” he declares. “If you sentence my client to a fine, then I ask you to deduct from this amount the cost of washing the sheets that the plaintiff soiled with her shoes.”

The prostitute jumps up and shouts: “It’s not true! I took off my shoes!!!”

There is laughter in the hall. The defendant is acquitted.

"The Omen"

To the great Russian lawyer F.N. Plevako is credited with frequently using the religious mood of jurors in the interests of clients. Once, speaking in a provincial district court, he agreed with the bell ringer of the local church that he would begin ringing the gospel for mass with special accuracy.

The speech of the famous lawyer lasted several hours, and at the end F.N. Plevako exclaimed: If my client is innocent, the Lord will give a sign about it!

And then the bells rang. The jurors crossed themselves. The meeting lasted several minutes, and the foreman announced a not guilty verdict.

“Begin!”

From the memories of Plevako... Once a rich Moscow merchant turned to him for help. Plevako says: “I heard about this merchant. I decided that I would charge such a fee that the merchant would be horrified. And not only was he not surprised, but he also said:

Just win my case. I’ll pay what you said, and I’ll also give you pleasure.

What kind of pleasure?

Win the case, you'll see.

I won the case. The merchant paid the fee. I reminded him of the promised pleasure. The merchant says:

On Sunday, around ten in the morning, I’ll pick you up and let’s go.

Where to this early?

Look, you'll see.

It's Sunday. The merchant came to pick me up. We are going to Zamoskvorechye. I wonder where he's taking me. There are no restaurants here, no gypsies. And the time is not right for these things. We drove down some side streets. There are no residential buildings around, only barns and warehouses. We arrived at some warehouse. There is a little man standing at the gate. Either a watchman or a team worker. They got off.

Kupchina asks the man:

That's right, your lordship.

We walk through the yard. The little man opened a door. We walked in, looked and didn’t understand anything. A huge room, shelves along the walls, dishes on the shelves.

The merchant sent the peasant out, stripped off his fur coat and offered me to take it off. I undress. The merchant went to the corner, took two hefty clubs, gave one of them to me and said:

Get started.

So what to start?

Like what? Break the dishes!

Why hit her? - The merchant smiled.

Start, you’ll understand why... - The merchant walked up to the shelves and with one blow broke a bunch of dishes. I hit too. Broke it too. We began to break the dishes and, imagine, I went into such a rage and began to smash the dishes with such fury with a club that I’m ashamed to even remember. Imagine that I really experienced some kind of wild but acute pleasure and could not calm down until the merchant and I broke everything down to the last cup. When it was all over, the merchant asked me:

Well, did you enjoy it?

I had to admit that I received it.”

Fyodor Nikiforovich Plevako was born on April 25, 1842 in the city of Troitsk. His father, Vasily Ivanovich Plevak, was a member of the Trinity Customs, a court councilor of the Ukrainian nobles. He had four children, two of whom died as infants. Vasily Ivanovich was not in a church (that is, official) marriage with Fedor’s mother, the Kyrgyz serf Ekaterina Stepanova, and therefore the future “genius of speech” and his older brother Dormidont were illegitimate children. According to tradition, Fedor took his first surname and patronymic according to the name of his godfather - Nikifor.

From 1848 to 1851, Fedor studied at the Trinity parish school and then at the district school, and in the summer of 1851, due to his father’s retirement, their family moved to Moscow. In the fall of the same year, the nine-year-old boy was assigned to a commercial school located on Ostozhenka and considered exemplary at that time. Even members of the royal family, who loved to test the knowledge of students, often honored the institution with a visit. Fyodor and his brother Dormidont studied diligently and were excellent students, and by the end of the first year of study their names were included on the “golden board”. When, at the beginning of the boys’ second year of study, the nephew of Emperor Nicholas, Prince Peter of Oldenburg, visited the school, he was told about Fyodor’s unique abilities to perform various arithmetic operations in his head with four-digit numbers. The prince himself tested the boy and, convinced of his skills, gave him a box of chocolates. And at the very end of 1852, Vasily Ivanovich was informed that his sons were expelled from the school as illegitimate. Fyodor Nikiforovich remembered the humiliation he experienced well throughout his life, and many years later he wrote in his autobiography: “We were called unworthy of the very school that praised us for our successes and flaunted our exceptional abilities in mathematics. God forgive them! These narrow-minded people really didn’t know what they were doing when they performed human sacrifice.”

Only in the fall of 1853, thanks to the father’s long efforts, his sons were accepted into the third grade of the First Moscow Gymnasium, located on Prechistenka. Fedor graduated from the gymnasium in the spring of 1859 and, as a volunteer, entered the law faculty of the capital's university, changing his surname Nikiforov to the surname of his father Plevak. During the years spent at the university, Fyodor buried his father and older brother, and his sick sister and mother remained dependent on him. Fortunately, studying was easy for the talented young man; as a student, he worked as a tutor and translator, visited Germany, attended a course of lectures at the famous Heidelberg University, and also translated the works of the famous lawyer Georg Puchta into Russian. Fyodor Nikiforovich graduated from the university in 1864, with a candidate of rights diploma in hand, and again changed his last name, adding the letter “o” to it at the end, and with an emphasis on it.

The young man did not immediately decide on the calling of a lawyer - for several years, Fedor Nikiforovich, waiting for a suitable vacancy, worked as an intern at the Moscow District Court. And after in the spring of 1866, in connection with the beginning of the Judicial Reform of Alexander II, a sworn legal profession began to be created in Russia, Plevako signed up as an assistant to a sworn attorney, one of the first Moscow lawyers, Mikhail Ivanovich Dobrokhotov. It was in the rank of assistant that Fyodor Nikiforovich first showed himself as a skilled lawyer and in September 1870 he was accepted as a jury attorney for the district. One of the first criminal trials with his participation was the defense of a certain Alexei Maruev, accused of two forgeries. Despite the fact that Plevako lost this case, and his client was sent to Siberia, the young man’s speech clearly demonstrated his remarkable talents. Plevako said about the witnesses in the case: “The first attributes to the second what the second attributes, in turn, to the first... Thus they destroy themselves mutually in the most important matters! And what kind of faith can there be in them?!” The second case brought Fyodor Nikiforovich his first fee of two hundred rubles, and he woke up famous after the seemingly losing case of Kostrubo-Karitsky, who was accused of attempting to poison his mistress. The lady was defended by two of the best Russian lawyers of that time - Spasovich and Urusov, but the jury acquitted Plevako's client.

From that moment on, Fyodor Nikiforovich’s brilliant ascent to the pinnacle of lawyer fame began. He contrasted the harsh attacks of his opponents in trials with a calm tone, reasoned objections and a detailed analysis of the evidence. All those present at his speeches unanimously noted that Plevako was a speaker from God. People came from other cities to hear him speak in court. The newspapers wrote that when Fyodor Nikiforovich finished his speech, the audience was sobbing, and the judges no longer understood who to judge. Many of Fyodor Nikiforovich’s speeches became anecdotes and parables, were divided into quotes (for example, Plevako’s favorite phrase, with which he usually began his speech: “Gentlemen, it could have been worse”), and were included in textbooks for law students and, undoubtedly, are the property of the country's literary heritage. It is curious that, unlike other luminaries of the sworn profession of that time - Urusov, Andreevsky, Karabchevsky - Fyodor Nikiforovich was poor in appearance. Anatoly Koni described him as follows: “An angular, high-cheekboned Kalmyk face. Wide-set eyes, unruly strands of long dark hair. His appearance could have been called ugly, if not for the inner beauty that shone through now in a kind smile, now in an animated expression, now in the brilliance and fire of his speaking eyes. His movements were uneven and sometimes awkward, the lawyer's tailcoat fit awkwardly on him, and his whispering voice seemed to come from his calling as an orator. However, in this voice there were notes of such passion and strength that it captured the listeners and conquered them.” Writer Vikenty Veresaev recalled: “His main strength lay in his intonation, in the irresistible, literally magical infectiousness of feelings with which he knew how to ignite his listeners. Therefore, his speeches on paper do not even come close to conveying their amazing power.” According to the authoritative opinion of Koni, Fedor Nikiforovich flawlessly mastered the triple calling of the defense: “to appease, convince, touch.” It is also interesting that Plevako never wrote the texts of his speeches in advance, but at the request of close friends or newspaper reporters, after the trial, if he was not lazy, he wrote down his spoken speech. By the way, Plevako was the first in Moscow to use a Remington typewriter.

Plevako’s strength as a speaker lay not only in his emotionality, resourcefulness and psychologism, but also in the colorfulness of his words. Fyodor Nikiforovich was a master at antitheses (for example, his phrase about a Jew and a Russian: “Our dream is to eat five times a day and not get heavy, but his dream is once every five days and not get thin”), to picture comparisons (censorship, according to in the words of Plevako: “These are tongs that remove carbon deposits from a candle without extinguishing its light and fire”), to spectacular appeals (to the jury: “Open your arms - I’m giving him (the client) to you!”, to the murdered man: “Comrade, sleeping peacefully in the coffin!"). In addition, Fyodor Nikiforovich was an unsurpassed specialist in cascades of loud phrases, beautiful images and witty antics that unexpectedly came to his mind and saved his clients. How unpredictable Plevako’s finds were can be clearly seen from a couple of his speeches, which became legends - during the defense of a stealing priest, who was defrocked for this, and an old woman who stole a tin teapot. In the first case, the priest's guilt in stealing church money was firmly proven. The defendant himself admitted to it. All the witnesses were against him, and the prosecutor gave a damning speech. Plevako, having remained silent throughout the entire judicial investigation and without asking a single question to the witnesses, made a bet with his friend that his defensive speech would last exactly one minute, after which the priest would be acquitted. When his time came, Fyodor Nikiforovich stood up and addressed the jury, saying in a characteristic sincere voice: “Gentlemen of the jury, my client has absolved you of your sins for more than twenty years. Let them go and give him one more time, Russian people.” The priest was acquitted. In the case of the old woman and the teapot, the prosecutor, wishing in advance to reduce the effect of the lawyer’s defensive speech, himself said everything possible in favor of the old woman (poor, I feel sorry for the grandmother, the theft is trivial), but in the end he emphasized that property is sacred and inviolable, “since it the improvement of Russia continues.” Fyodor Nikiforovich, who spoke after him, noted: “Our country has had to endure many trials and troubles during its thousand-year existence. And the Tatars tormented her, and the Polovtsians, and the Poles, and the Pechenegs. Twelve languages attacked her and captured Moscow. Russia overcame everything, endured everything, and only grew and became stronger from the trials. But now..., now the old woman stole a tin teapot worth thirty kopecks. The country, of course, will not be able to withstand this and will perish from it.” It makes no sense to say that the old woman was also acquitted.

Behind each of Plevako’s victories in court was not only natural talent, but also careful preparation, a comprehensive analysis of the prosecution’s evidence, an in-depth study of the circumstances of the case, as well as the testimony of witnesses and defendants. Often, criminal trials involving Fyodor Nikiforovich gained nationwide resonance. One of them was the “Mitrofanievsky trial” - the trial of the abbess of the Serpukhov monastery, which aroused interest even abroad. Mitrofaniya - she is also Baroness Praskovya Rosen in the world - was the daughter of the hero of the Patriotic War, Adjutant General Grigory Rosen. Being a maid of honor at the royal court in 1854, she took monastic vows and ruled over the Serpukhov monastery from 1861. Over the next ten years, the abbess, relying on her proximity to the court and her connections, stole over seven hundred thousand rubles through forgery and fraud. The investigation into this case was begun in St. Petersburg by Anatoly Koni, who was at that time the prosecutor of the St. Petersburg District Court, and was tried in October 1874 by the Moscow District Court. Plevako shone in the unusual role of the victims’ attorney, becoming at the trial the main accuser of both the abbess and her henchmen. Having refuted the arguments of the defense and confirmed the conclusions of the investigation, he said: “A traveler walking past the high fences of the master’s monastery crosses himself and believes that he is walking past God’s house, but in this house the morning bell raised the abbess not to prayers, but to dark deeds! Instead of praying people there are swindlers, instead of deeds of good there is preparation for false testimony, instead of a temple there is a stock exchange, instead of prayer there are exercises in drawing up bills, that’s what was lurking behind the walls... Higher, higher build fences for the community entrusted to you, so that the world’s affairs are not visible , created under the cover of the monastery and cassock! Abbess Mitrofania was found guilty of fraud and went into exile in Siberia.

Perhaps the greatest public outcry of all the processes involving Fyodor Nikiforovich was caused by the case of Savva Mamontov in July 1900. Savva Ivanovich was an industrial magnate, the main shareholder of railway companies, one of the most famous philanthropists in the history of Russia. His estate "Abramtsevo" in the 1870-1890s was an important center of artistic life. Ilya Repin, Vasily Polenov, Vasily Surikov, Valentin Serov, Viktor Vasnetsov, Konstantin Stanislavsky worked and met here. In 1885, Mamontov, using his own funds, founded the Russian opera in Moscow, where Nadezhda Zabela-Vrubel, Vladimir Lossky, and Fyodor Chaliapin shone. In the fall of 1899, the Russian public was shocked by the arrest of Mamontov, his brother and two sons on charges of theft and embezzlement of six million rubles from funds allocated for the construction of the Moscow-Yaroslavl-Arkhangelsk railway.

The trial in this case was led by the chairman of the capital's district court, an authoritative lawyer, Davydov. The prosecutor was the famous statesman Pavel Kurlov, the future head of the Separate Corps of Gendarmes. Plevako was invited to defend Savva Mamontov, and his relatives were defended by three more luminaries of the Russian legal profession: Karabchevsky, Shubinsky and Maklakov. The central event of the trial was Fyodor Nikiforovich’s defensive speech. With a trained eye, he quickly identified the weak points of the prosecution and told the jury how patriotic and grandiose his client’s plan was to build a railway to Vyatka in order to “revive the North,” and how, due to an unsuccessful choice of performers, the generously financed operation turned into losses, and Mamontov himself went bankrupt. . Plevako said: “Just think, what happened here? Crime or miscalculation? The intention to harm the Yaroslavl road or the desire to save its interests? Woe to the vanquished! However, let the pagans repeat this vile phrase. And we will say: “Mercy to the unfortunate!” The court decision recognized the fact of embezzlement, but all the defendants were acquitted.
Fyodor Nikiforovich himself explained the secrets of his success as a defender quite simply. The first of these he called a sense of responsibility to his client. Plevako said: “There is a huge difference between the position of a defense attorney and a prosecutor. Behind the prosecutor there is a cold, silent and unshakable law, and behind the defender there are real people. Relying on us, they climb on our shoulders and it’s scary to stumble with such a burden!” The second secret of Fyodor Nikiforovich was his amazing ability to influence jurors. He explained it to Surikov this way: “Vasily Ivanovich, when you paint portraits, you try to look into the soul of the person posing for you. So I try to penetrate the soul of each juror and deliver my speech so that it reaches their consciousness.”

Was the lawyer always confident in the innocence of his clients? Of course no. In 1890, making a defensive speech in the case of Alexandra Maksimenko, who was accused of poisoning her husband, Plevako said bluntly: “If you ask me whether I am convinced of her innocence, I will not say yes.” I don't want to deceive. But I am not convinced of her guilt either. And when it is necessary to choose between death and life, then all doubts must be resolved in favor of life.” However, Fyodor Nikiforovich tried to avoid doing things that were obviously wrong. For example, he refused to defend in court the famous swindler Sofya Bluvshtein, better known as “Sonka the golden pen.”

Plevako became the only luminary of the domestic legal profession who never acted as a defender in strictly political trials, where Social Democrats, Narodnaya Volya, Narodniks, Cadets, and Socialist-Revolutionaries were tried. This was largely due to the fact that back in 1872, the lawyer’s career and, possibly, life almost ended due to his alleged political unreliability. The case began with the fact that in December 1872, Lieutenant General Slezkin - the head of the Moscow provincial gendarmerie department - reported to the manager of the third department that a certain “secret legal society” had been discovered in the city, formed with the aim of “introducing students to revolutionary ideas”, as well as “ have constant contacts with foreign figures and find ways to distribute prohibited books.” According to the intelligence data received, the society included law students, candidates of law, and also sworn attorneys along with their assistants. The chief of the Moscow gendarmerie reported: “The said society currently has up to 150 active members... Among the first is attorney at law Fyodor Plevako, who replaced Prince Urusov (exiled from Moscow to the Latvian town of Wenden and held there under police supervision).” Seven months later, in July 1873, the same Slezkine wrote to his superiors that “the strictest surveillance is being carried out on all persons, and all possible measures are being taken to obtain data that serves as a guarantee about the actions of this legal society.” In the end, no data “that could serve as guarantee” could be found, and the case about the “secret society” was closed. However, from this very time until 1905, Plevako pointedly avoided politics.

Only a few times Fyodor Nikiforovich agreed to speak at trials in cases of “unrest” that had a political connotation. One of the first such proceedings was the “Lyutorich Case”, which caused a lot of noise, in which Plevako stood up for the rebel peasants. In the spring of 1879, the peasants of the village of Lyutorichi, located in the Tula province, rebelled against their landowner. The troops suppressed the rebellion, and its “instigators,” numbering thirty-four, were brought to trial on charges of “resistance to authorities.” The Moscow Judicial Chamber considered the case at the end of 1880, and Plevako took upon himself not only the defense of the accused, but also all the costs of their maintenance during the trial, which lasted, by the way, three weeks. His defensive speech was actually an accusation of the ruling regime in the country. Calling the situation of the peasants after the reforms of 1861 “half-starved freedom,” Fyodor Nikiforovich proved with facts and figures that life in Lyutorichi had become several times harder than pre-reform slavery. The enormous exactions from the peasants outraged him to such an extent that he declared to the landowner and his manager: “I am ashamed of the time in which such people live and act!” Regarding the accusations of his clients, Plevako said: “Indeed, they are the instigators, they are the instigators, they are the cause of all causes. Lack of rights, hopeless poverty, shameless exploitation, which brought everyone and everything to ruin - these are the instigators.” After the lawyer’s speech, according to eyewitnesses, “applause from shocked and excited listeners was heard in the courtroom.” The court was forced to acquit thirty of the thirty-four defendants, and Anatoly Koni said that Plevako’s speech became “according to the mood and conditions of those years, a civil feat.”

Fyodor Nikiforovich spoke equally loudly and boldly at the trial of participants in the strike of workers at the Nikolskaya manufactory, owned by the Morozov factory owners and located near the village of Orekhovo (currently the city of Orekhovo-Zuyevo). This strike, which took place in January 1885, became the largest and most organized in Russia at that time - over eight thousand people took part in it. The strike was only partly political in nature - it was led by revolutionary workers Moiseenko and Volkov, and among other demands presented to the governor by the strikers was “a complete change of employment contracts in accordance with the published state law.” Plevako took upon himself the defense of the main accused - Volkov and Moiseenko. As in the Lyutorich case, Fyodor Nikiforovich justified the defendants, considering their actions as a forced protest against the arbitrariness of the owners of the manufactory. He emphasized: “Contrary to the terms of the contract and the general law, the factory administration does not heat the establishment, and the workers are at the machines at ten to fifteen degrees cold. Do they have the right to refuse work and leave in the presence of the lawless acts of the owner, or are they forced to freeze to death as a hero? The owner also pays them arbitrarily, and not according to the conditions established by the contract. Should workers endure and remain silent or can they refuse to work in this case? I believe that the law should protect the interests of the owners against the lawlessness of the workers, and not take the owners under its protection in all their arbitrariness.” Having outlined the situation of the workers of the Nikolskaya manufactory, Plevako, according to the recollections of eyewitnesses, uttered the following words: “If, reading a book about black slaves, we are indignant, then now we have white slaves in front of us.” The court was convinced by the defense's arguments. The recognized leaders of the strike, Volkov and Moiseenko, received only three months of arrest.

Often in court speeches, Plevako touched on topical social issues. At the end of 1897, when the capital's judicial chamber was hearing the case of workers of the Konshina factory in the city of Serpukhov, who rebelled against ruthless working conditions and destroyed the apartments of the factory management, Plevako raised and clarified the legally and politically extremely important question of the relationship between collective and personal responsibility for any offense. He said: “A lawless and intolerable act was committed, and the criminal was the crowd. But it is not the crowd that is judged, but the several dozen persons seen in it: the crowd has left... The crowd is a building in which people are bricks. Both the prison, the home of the outcast, and the temple to God are built from the same bricks. Being in a crowd does not mean wearing its instincts. Pickpockets are also hidden in the crowd of pilgrims. The crowd is infectious. Persons entering it become infected. Beating them is the same as destroying an epidemic by scourging those who are sick.”

It is curious that, unlike his colleagues who are trying to turn the trial into a lesson in political literacy or a school of political education, Fyodor Nikiforovich always tried to avoid political aspects, and his defense, as a rule, had universal notes. Addressing the privileged classes, Plevako appealed to their sense of philanthropy, urging them to extend a helping hand to the poor. Fyodor Nikiforovich’s worldview could be described as humanistic; he repeatedly emphasized that “the life of one single person is more valuable than any reforms.” And he added: “Everyone is equal before the court, even if you are a generalissimo!” It is curious that at the same time Plevako found a sense of mercy natural and necessary for justice: “The word of the law is like a mother’s threats to her children. As long as there is no guilt, she promises her disobedient son cruel punishment, but as soon as the need for punishment arises, maternal love looks for a reason to soften the penalty.”

Fyodor Nikiforovich devoted almost forty years to human rights activities. Both the legal elite, specialists, and ordinary people valued Plevako above all other lawyers, calling him “a great orator,” “a genius of speech,” and “the metropolitan of the legal profession.” His very name has become a common noun, meaning a top-class lawyer. Without any irony in those years they wrote and said: “Find yourself another “Gobber.” In recognition of his services, Fyodor Nikiforovich was awarded hereditary nobility, the title of actual state councilor (fourth class, according to the table of ranks corresponding to the rank of major general) and an audience with the emperor. Fyodor Nikiforovich lived in a two-story mansion on Novinsky Boulevard, and the whole country knew this address. His personality amazingly combined sweepingness and integrity, riotous lordship (for example, when Plevako organized Homeric feasts on the ships he chartered) and everyday simplicity. Despite the fact that fees and fame strengthened his financial position, money never had power over the lawyer. A contemporary wrote: “Fyodor Nikiforovich did not hide his wealth and was not ashamed of wealth. He believed that the main thing was to act in a divine way and not refuse help to those who truly need it.” Plevako conducted many cases not only for free, but also helping his poor defendants financially. In addition, Plevako, from a young age and until his death, was an indispensable member of various charitable institutions, for example, the “Society for Charity, Education and Education of Blind Children” or the “Committee for the Arrangement of Student Dormitories.” Nevertheless, kind to the poor, he literally extracted huge fees from merchants, while demanding advances. When they asked him what an “advance payment” was, Plevako answered: “Do you know the deposit? So the advance is the same deposit, but three times more.”

An interesting character trait of Plevako was his condescension towards his spiteful critics and envious people. At a feast on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of his lawyer’s career, Fyodor Nikiforovich affably clinked glasses, both with friends and with invited famous enemies. To the surprise of his wife, Fyodor Nikiforovich, with his usual good nature, remarked: “Why should I judge them, or what?” The lawyer's cultural needs command respect - he had a huge library for those times. Despising fiction, Fyodor Nikiforovich was fond of literature on law, history and philosophy. His favorite authors included Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Kuno Fischer and Georg Jellinek. A contemporary wrote: “Plevako had a kind of caring and tender attitude towards books - both his own and those of others. He compared them to children. He was outraged by the sight of a torn, dirty or disheveled book. He said that along with the existing “Society for the Protection of Children from Cruelty,” it is necessary to organize a “Society for the Protection of Books from Cruelty.” Despite the fact that Plevako greatly valued his volumes, he freely gave them to his friends and acquaintances to read. In this he was strikingly different from the “book miser” philosopher Rozanov, who said: “A book is not a girl, there is no need for it to pass from hand to hand.”

The famous speaker was not only well-read, from a young age he was distinguished by his extraordinary memory, observation and sense of humor, which was expressed in cascades of puns, witticisms, parodies and epigrams that he composed both in prose and poetry. For a long time, Fyodor Nikiforovich’s feuilletons were published in the newspaper “Moskovsky Listok” by the writer Nikolai Pastukhov, and in 1885 Plevako organized the publication of his own newspaper in Moscow called “Life”, but this enterprise “was not successful and stopped in the tenth month.” The lawyer's circle of personal connections was wide. He was well acquainted with Turgenev and Shchedrin, Vrubel and Stanislavsky, Yermolova and Chaliapin, as well as many other recognized artists, writers and actors. According to the memoirs of Pavel Rossiev, Leo Tolstoy often sent men to Plevako with the words: “Fedor, whitewash the unfortunate.” The lawyer adored all types of spectacles, from elite performances to folk festivals, but the greatest pleasure was given to him by visiting two capital “temples of art” - the Russian Mamontov Opera and the Nemirovich-Danchenko and Stanislavsky Art Theater. Plevako also loved to travel and traveled all over Russia from the Urals to Warsaw, speaking at trials in small and large cities of the country.
Plevako’s first wife worked as a public teacher, and the marriage with her was very unsuccessful. Soon after the birth of their son in 1877, they separated. And in 1879, a certain Maria Demidova, the wife of a famous linen industrialist, turned to Plevako for legal assistance. A few months after meeting the lawyer, she, taking her five children, moved to Fyodor Nikiforovich on Novinsky Boulevard. All her children became family to Plevako, and later they had three more - a daughter, Varvara, and two sons. The divorce proceedings of Maria Demidova against Vasily Demidov lasted for twenty years, since the manufacturer flatly refused to let his ex-wife go. With Maria Andreevna, Fyodor Nikiforovich lived in harmony and harmony for the rest of his life. It is noteworthy that Plevako’s son from his first marriage and one of his sons from his second subsequently became famous lawyers and worked in Moscow. What's even more remarkable is that they were both named Sergei.

It is necessary to note one more feature of Fyodor Nikiforovich - all his life the lawyer was a deeply religious person and even provided a scientific basis for his faith. Plevako regularly attended church, observed religious rituals, loved to baptize children of all ranks and classes, served as a church warden in the Assumption Cathedral, and also tried to reconcile the “blasphemous” position of Leo Tolstoy with the provisions of the official church. And in 1904, Fyodor Nikiforovich even met with the Pope and had a long conversation with him about the unity of God and the fact that Orthodox and Catholics are obliged to live in good harmony.

At the end of his life, namely in 1905, Fyodor Nikiforovich turned to the topic of politics. The Tsar's manifesto on October 17 instilled in him the illusion of approaching civil liberties in Russia, and he rushed to power with youthful enthusiasm. First of all, Plevako asked the famous political figure and lawyer Vasily Maklakov to be included in the list of members of the Constitutional Democratic Party. However, he refused, reasonably noting that “party discipline and Plevako are incompatible concepts.” Then Fyodor Nikiforovich joined the ranks of the Octobrists. Subsequently, he was elected to the third State Duma, in which, with the naivety of an amateur politician, he called on his colleagues to replace “words about freedom with the words of free workers” (this speech in the Duma, held in November 1907, was his first and last). It is also known that Plevako was considering a project for transforming the royal title in order to emphasize that Nicholas was no longer an absolute Russian Tsar, but a limited monarch. However, he did not dare to declare this from the Duma rostrum.

Plevako died in Moscow on January 5, 1909 from a heart attack at the sixty-seventh year of his life. All of Russia responded to the death of the outstanding speaker, but Muscovites especially mourned, many of whom believed that the Russian capital had five main attractions: the Tretyakov Gallery, St. Basil's Cathedral, the Tsar Cannon, the Tsar Bell and Fyodor Plevako. The Early Morning newspaper put it very briefly and precisely: “Russia has lost its Cicero.” Fyodor Nikiforovich was buried with a colossal gathering of people of all backgrounds and strata in the cemetery of the Sorrowful Monastery. However, in the thirties of the last century, Plevako’s remains were reburied at the Vagankovskoye cemetery.

Based on materials from the book by N.A. Troitsky “Leaders of the Russian Bar” and the website pravo.ru.

One of the most famous lawyers in our history is Fyodor Nikiforovich Plevako (1842 - 1908). He took part in the most famous trials of that time, including political ones, in particular in the case of the Morozov strike of 1886.

Plevako was known for taking on the defense of both the rich and noble, as well as ordinary people, without making any distinction between them and shining with his eloquence in the trials of the poor no less than in high-profile cases. Stories about the trials involving Plevako have survived to this day, turning into funny and witty anecdotes.

I took off my shoes!

Plevako defended a man whom a prostitute accused of rape. The woman demanded a significant amount for the injury. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant lured her to a hotel room and raped her there. The man stated that everything was by good agreement. The last word goes to Plevako.

“Gentlemen of the jury,” he said. “If you sentence my client to a fine, then I ask you to deduct from this amount the cost of washing the sheets that the plaintiff soiled with her shoes.”

The prostitute jumps up and shouts: “It’s not true! I took off my shoes!!!”

There is laughter in the hall. The defendant is acquitted.

15 years of unfair reproach

One day Plevako received a case regarding the murder of his wife by a man. Plevako came to the trial as usual, calm and confident of success, and without any papers or cheat sheets. And so, when it was the turn of the defense, Plevako stood up and said:

The noise in the hall began to subside. Spit again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

There was dead silence in the hall. Lawyer again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

There was a slight rustle in the hall, but the speech did not begin. Again:

Gentlemen of the jury!
Here the dissatisfied roar of the people, who had been waiting for the long-awaited spectacle, echoed in the hall. And Plevako again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!

At this point the audience exploded with indignation, perceiving everything as a mockery of the respectable audience. And from the podium again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

Something unimaginable began. The hall roared along with the judge, prosecutor and assessors. And finally, Plevako raised his hand, calling on the people to calm down.

- Well, gentlemen, you couldn’t stand even 15 minutes of my experiment. And what was it like for this unfortunate man to listen to the unfair reproaches and irritated itching of his grumpy woman for 15 years over every insignificant trifle?!

The audience froze, then burst into delighted applause. The man was acquitted.

20 minutes

Lawyer Plevako’s defense of the owner of a small shop, a semi-literate woman, who violated the rules on trading hours and closed the trade 20 minutes later than expected, on the eve of some religious holiday, is very well known. The court hearing in her case was scheduled for 10 o'clock. The court left 10 minutes late. Everyone was present, except for the defender - Plevako. The chairman of the court ordered to find Plevako. About ten minutes later, Plevako, without haste, entered the hall, calmly sat down in the place of protection and opened his briefcase. The chairman of the court reprimanded him for being late. Then Plevako pulled out his watch, looked at it and declared that it was only five minutes past ten on his watch. The chairman pointed out to him that the wall clock was already 20 minutes past ten. Plevako asked the chairman:

What time is it on your watch, Your Excellency?

The chairman looked and replied:

At my fifteen minutes past ten.

Plevako turned to the prosecutor:

What about your watch, Mr. Prosecutor?

The prosecutor, clearly wanting to cause trouble for the defense attorney, replied with a malicious smile:

It's already twenty-five minutes past ten on my watch.

He could not know what trap Plevako had set for him and how much he, the prosecutor, helped the defense.

The defendant was actually 20 minutes late. But, gentlemen of the jury, she is an old woman, illiterate, and doesn’t know much about watches. You and I are literate and intelligent people. How are things going with your watches? When the wall clock shows 20 minutes, Mr. Chairman has 15 minutes, and Mr. Prosecutor’s clock has 25 minutes. Of course, the most reliable watch belongs to Mr. Prosecutor. So my watch was 20 minutes slow, so I was 20 minutes late. And I always considered my watch to be very accurate, because I have a gold, Moser watch.

The jury deliberated for one minute and acquitted the defendant.

Absolution

One priest was once tried for some offense. Before the trial, Plevako was asked whether his defense speech was great? To which he replied that his entire speech would consist of one phrase.

And now, after the prosecutor’s indictment, demanding a decent punishment, it was the defense’s turn.
The lawyer stood up and said:

Gentlemen! Remember how many sins your father has forgiven you during his life, so now won’t we forgive him just one sin?!!!

The audience's reaction was appropriate. The priest was acquitted.

Poor Russia!

One high-ranking noblewoman, being bankrupt, having lost her husband and son, deprived of her estate for debts, lived as a hanger-on with some lady, then rented a room and, since she did not have a kettle to boil water, she stole it from the market. And she was tried by the crown court (as a noblewoman).

The prosecutor, seeing Plevako, decided: “Yeah. Now he will play on pity, on the fact that this is a poor woman who lost her husband, went bankrupt... I’ll play on this too.” He came out and said: “Of course, I feel sorry for the woman, she lost her husband, son, etc., my heart bleeds, I myself am ready to go to prison in her place, but... Gentlemen, crown court. The point is, in principle, she took aim at the sacred foundation of our society - private property. Today she stole a teapot, and tomorrow - a cart, and the day after tomorrow something else. This is the destruction of the foundations of our state. And since everything starts small and grows into something huge, that’s why I ask her to be punished, otherwise it threatens our state with huge disasters, the destruction of its foundations.”

The prosecutor received applause. Plevako came out to his place and suddenly turned around, went to the window, stood for a long time, looked. The audience is tense: what is he watching? Plevako came out and said:

“Dear Crown Court! Russia suffered so many troubles: Batu trampled her with horses, and the Teutonic knights raped Mother Russia, twelve languages led by Napoleon Bonaparte came and burned Moscow. Russia has suffered so many troubles, but every time it has risen, risen like a phoenix from the ashes. And now there’s a new misfortune: a woman stole the teapot. Poor Russia! What’s going to happen to you now?”

The audience laughed. The woman was acquitted.

Don't dare to believe!

One Russian landowner ceded part of his land to the peasants without legally formalizing it in any way. Many years later he changed his mind and took the land back. Outraged peasants started riots. They were put on trial. The jury consisted of neighboring landowners; the rebels were threatened with hard labor. The famous lawyer Plevako undertook to defend them. He remained silent throughout the entire process, and at the end he demanded that the peasants be punished even more severely. "For what?" - the judge did not understand. Answer: “To forever wean the peasants from believing the word of a Russian nobleman.” Some of the peasants were acquitted, the rest received minor punishments.

The Omen

Plevako is credited with frequently using the religious mood of jurors in the interests of clients. Once, speaking in a provincial district court, he agreed with the bell ringer of the local church that he would begin ringing the gospel for mass with special accuracy.

The speech of the famous lawyer lasted several hours, and at the end Plevako exclaimed:

If my client is innocent, the Lord will give a sign about it!

And then the bells rang. The jurors crossed themselves. The meeting lasted several minutes, and the foreman announced a not guilty verdict.

No title

During the lifetime of the great lawyer, many of Plevako’s court speeches became anecdotes and even parables passed from mouth to mouth. And a modern lawyer, not by will, but suddenly flaunts an aphorism, calling for help from a brilliant lawyer.

Fedor Nikiforovich Plevako:

“A swear word is an interjection in the folk language”

“Behind the prosecutor is the law, and behind the lawyer is a man with his own destiny, with his own aspirations, and this man climbs onto the lawyer, seeks his protection, and it is very scary to slip with such a burden.”

“There are moments when the soul is indignant at untruth, at the sins of others, indignant in the name of the moral rules in which it believes and lives, and, indignant, strikes the one with whom it is indignant... Thus, Peter strikes a slave who insults his teacher. There is still guilt, incontinence, a lack of love for the fallen, but the guilt is more excusable than the first, for the act is not caused by weakness, not by self-love, but by a jealous love for truth and justice.”

Anecdotes about court cases involving Fyodor Nikiforovich Plevako:

* In one case, Plevako took up the defense of a man who was accused of rape. The victim tried to recover a decent amount of money from the hapless Don Juan as damages. The woman alleged that the accused dragged her into a hotel room and raped her. Man
in response, he retorted that their love affair took place by mutual consent. And now, the brilliant Fyodor Nikiforovich Plevako is speaking to the jury:
“Gentlemen of the jury,” he declares. “If you sentence my client to a fine, then I ask you to deduct from this amount the cost of washing the sheets that the plaintiff soiled with her shoes.”
The woman immediately jumps up and shouts:
- Not true! I took off my shoes!
There is laughter in the hall. The defendant is acquitted.

* Once Plevako defended an elderly priest accused of adultery and theft. By all appearances, the defendant could not count on the favor of the jury. The prosecutor convincingly described the depth of the fall of the clergyman, mired in sins. Finally, Plevako rose from his place.
His speech was brief: “Gentlemen of the jury! The matter is clear. The prosecutor is absolutely right in everything. The defendant committed all these crimes and confessed to them. What is there to argue about? But I draw your attention to this. A man sits in front of you who has absolved you of your sins in confession for thirty years. Now he is waiting from you: will you forgive him his sin?”
There is no need to clarify that the priest was acquitted.

* The court was considering the case of an old woman, a hereditary honorary citizen, who stole a tin teapot worth 30 kopecks. The prosecutor, knowing that Plevako would defend her, decided to cut the ground from under his feet and himself described to the jury the difficult life of her client, which forced her to take such a step. The prosecutor even emphasized that the criminal evokes pity, not indignation: “But, gentlemen, private property is sacred, the world order is based on this principle, so if you acquit this woman, then logically you should acquit the revolutionaries.”
The jury nodded their heads in agreement, and then Plevako began his speech.
He said: “Russia has had to endure many troubles, many trials over more than a thousand years of existence. The Pechenegs tormented her, the Polovtsians, the Tatars, the Poles. Twelve tongues attacked her and took Moscow. Russia endured everything, overcame everything, and only grew stronger and stronger from the trials. But now... The old lady stole an old teapot worth 30 kopecks. Russia, of course, cannot stand this; it will perish irrevocably..."
The old woman was acquitted.

* Plevako had the habit of beginning his speech in court with the phrase: “Gentlemen, it could have been worse.” And no matter what case the lawyer came across, he did not change his phrase. One day Plevako undertook to defend a man who raped his own daughter. The hall was packed, everyone was waiting for the lawyer to begin his defense speech. Is it really from your favorite phrase? Incredible. But Plevako stood up and calmly said: “Gentlemen, it could have been worse.”
And here the judge himself could not stand it. “What,” he cried, “tell me, what could be worse than this abomination?” “Your honor,” asked Plevako, “what if he raped your daughter?”

* Plevako loved to protect women. He stood up for a modest young lady from the provinces who came to the conservatory to study piano. She accidentally stayed in the rooms of "Montenegro" on Tsvetnoy Boulevard, a well-known refuge of vices, not knowing where the cab driver had taken her from the station. And at night, drunken revelers began to break in on her. When the doors began to crack and the girl realized what they were trying to do from her, she jumped out the window from the third floor. Luckily, she fell into a snowdrift, but her arm was broken. The rosy dreams of musical education perished.
The prosecutor took the stupidest position in this process:
- I don’t understand: why were you so scared, throwing yourself out the window? After all, you, mademoiselle, could crash to death!
His doubts were resolved by the angry Plevako.
- Do not understand? “So I’ll explain it to you,” he said. - In the Siberian taiga there is an animal, the ermine, which nature has awarded with fur of the purest whiteness. When he is fleeing persecution, and there is a dirty puddle on his way, the ermine prefers to accept death rather than get dirty in the mud!..”

* One day Plevako came across a case regarding the murder of his wife by a man. The lawyer came to the trial as usual, calm and confident of success, and without any papers or cheat sheets. And so, when it was the turn of the defense, Plevako stood up and said:

The noise in the hall began to subside. Spit again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!
There was dead silence in the hall. Lawyer again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!
There was a slight rustle in the hall, but the speech did not begin. Again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!
Here the dissatisfied roar of the people, who had been waiting for the long-awaited spectacle, echoed in the hall. And Plevako again:
- Gentlemen of the jury!
Something unimaginable began. The hall roared along with the judge, prosecutor and assessors. And finally, Plevako raised his hand, calling on the people to calm down.
- Well, gentlemen, you couldn’t stand even 15 minutes of my experiment. What was it like for this unfortunate man to listen to 15 years of unfair reproaches and the irritated nagging of his grumpy woman over every insignificant trifle?!
The audience froze, then burst into delighted applause. The man was acquitted.

* In Kaluga, in the district court, the bankruptcy case of a local merchant was being heard. F.N. was called as the defender of the merchant, who owed a lot of money. Spit. Let's imagine the then Kaluga of the second half of the 19th century. This is a Russian patriarchal city with a great influence of the Old Believer population. The jurors in the hall are merchants with long beards, philistines in sensitive clothes and intellectuals of good, Christian character. The courthouse was located opposite the cathedral. It was the second week of Great Lent. The whole city gathered to listen to the “star of the legal profession.”
Fyodor Nikiforovich, having studied the case, seriously prepared for a defensive speech, but “for some reason” he was not allowed to speak. Finally, at about 5 pm, the chairman of the court announced:
- The floor belongs to attorney-at-law Feodor Nikiforovich Plevako.
The lawyer leisurely takes his podium, when suddenly at that moment a large bell is rung in the cathedral - for Lenten Vespers. In Moscow style, with a wide sweeping cross, Plevako makes the sign of the cross and reads loudly: “Lord and Master of my life, spirit of idleness... do not give it to me. The spirit of chastity... grant me... and do not condemn my brother...”
It was as if something had pierced everyone present. Everyone stood behind the jury. They stood up and listened to the prayer and the judicial ranks. Quietly, almost in a whisper, as if he were in a church, Fyodor Nikolaevich made a small speech, not at all the one he had prepared: “Now the priest has left the altar and, bowing to the ground, reads a prayer that the Lord will give us the strength “not to condemn our brother.” . And at this moment we gathered precisely in order to condemn and condemn our brother. Gentlemen of the jury, go to the deliberation room and there in silence ask your Christian conscience, is your brother, whom you are judging, guilty? The voice of God through your Christian conscience will tell you of his innocence. Give him a fair sentence."
The jury deliberated for five minutes, no more. They returned to the hall, and the foreman announced their decision:
- No, not guilty.

* Lawyer Plevako’s defense of the owner of a small shop, a semi-literate woman, who violated the rules on trading hours and closed the trade 20 minutes later than expected, on the eve of some religious holiday, is very well known. The court hearing in her case was scheduled for 10 o'clock. The court left 10 minutes late. Everyone was present, except for the defender - Plevako. The chairman of the court ordered to find Plevako. About 10 minutes later, Plevako slowly entered the hall, calmly sat down in the place of protection and opened his briefcase. The chairman of the court reprimanded him for being late. Then Plevako pulled out his watch, looked at it and declared that it was only five minutes past ten on his watch. The chairman pointed out to him that the wall clock was already 20 minutes past ten. Plevako asked the chairman: “What time is it on your watch, Your Excellency?” The chairman looked and replied:
- At my fifteen minutes past ten. Plevako turned to the prosecutor:
- What about your watch, Mr. Prosecutor?
The prosecutor, clearly wanting to cause trouble for the defense attorney, replied with a malicious smile:
- It’s already twenty-five minutes past ten on my watch.
He could not know what trap Plevako had set for him and how much he, the prosecutor, helped the defense.
The judicial investigation ended very quickly. Witnesses confirmed that the defendant closed the shop 20 minutes late. The prosecutor asked to find the defendant guilty. The floor was given to Plevako. The speech lasted two minutes. He declared:
- The defendant was really 20 minutes late. But, gentlemen of the jury, she is an old woman, illiterate, and doesn’t know much about watches. You and I are literate and intelligent people. How are things going with your watches? When the wall clock shows 20 minutes, Mr. Chairman has 15 minutes, and Mr. Prosecutor’s clock has 25 minutes. Of course, Mr. Prosecutor has the most reliable watch. So my watch was 20 minutes slow, so I was 20 minutes late. And I always considered my watch to be very accurate, because I have a gold, Moser watch. So if Mr. Chairman, according to the prosecutor’s watch, opened the hearing 15 minutes late, and the defense attorney arrived 20 minutes later, then how can you demand that an illiterate trader have a better watch and have a better understanding of time than the prosecutor and I?”
The jury deliberated for one minute and acquitted the defendant.

Plevako especially loved to protect women. Once he stood up for a modest girl who came from the provinces to study piano at the conservatory. The cab driver took her to the Montenegro rooms on Tsvetnoy Boulevard, a well-known refuge of vices, but she thought it was an ordinary hotel.
At night, drunken revelers began to break in on her, and the girl, hearing the sound of breaking doors and guessing that she was being harassed, threw herself out the window from the third floor. Fortunately, she did not fall to death, as she fell into a snowdrift, but she broke her arm, and she had to give up her dreams of musical education.

The prosecutor in this trial expressed a malicious doubt: “I don’t understand,” he said, turning to the girl, “why were you so scared, throwing yourself out the window? After all, you, mademoiselle, could have fallen to your death!” To this, the angry Plevako immediately replied: “Don’t you understand? So I’ll explain it to you now! In Siberia, in the taiga, there is an animal called the ermine, which is blessed by nature with the purest white fur. When he runs from pursuit, and a dirty puddle gets in his way, the stoat prefers to accept death rather than get dirty in the mud!

Plevako Fedor Nikiforovich (1842-1909) - one of the largest pre-revolutionary Russian lawyers, lawyer, judicial speaker, actual state councilor. He knew how to convince and protect. In 1870 he graduated from the Faculty of Law of Moscow University. Deputy of the 3rd State Duma from the Octobrist Party. Supporter of democratic principles of judicial proceedings. For representatives of the legal profession, all Russians, the name Plevako was and remains the embodiment of the excellent qualities of a lawyer, a defender of goodness and justice, caring for the good and prosperity of the Fatherland.

Among the pre-revolutionary lawyers, it was Plevako who was distinguished by his amazing eloquence and impeccable skill in rhetoric.

Plevako was one of those pre-revolutionary lawyers who developed the foundations of Russian judicial rhetoric.

Plevako’s participation in sensational criminal trials is a separate topic for serious scientific discussion.

Just some of the cases in which Plevako brilliantly participated:
The Case of the Luthorian Peasants;
Zamyatnin case;
Lukashevich case;
The case of the Sevsky peasants;
The case of the Konshin factory workers;
Bartenev case;
Maksimenko case;
The Gruzinsky case;
The Zasulich case.

Quotes from Plevako

“A swear word is an interjection in the folk language.”

“Behind the prosecutor is the law, and behind the lawyer is a man with his own destiny, with his own aspirations, and this man climbs onto the lawyer, seeks his protection, and it is very scary to slip with such a burden.”

“There are moments when the soul is indignant at untruths, at the sins of others, indignant in the name of the moral rules in which it believes and lives, and, indignant, strikes the one with whom it is indignant... Thus, Peter strikes a slave who insults his teacher. There is still guilt here, incontinence, a lack of love for the fallen, but the guilt is more excusable than the first, for the act is not caused by weakness, not by self-love, but by a jealous love for truth and justice.”

Fragments from the legendary trials of Plevako.

"20 minutes"

At my fifteen minutes past ten. Plevako turned to the prosecutor:

What about your watch, Mr. Prosecutor?

The prosecutor, clearly wanting to cause trouble for the defense attorney, replied with a malicious smile:

It's already twenty-five minutes past ten on my watch.

He could not know what trap Plevako had set for him and how much he, the prosecutor, helped the defense.

The jury deliberated for one minute and acquitted the defendant.

"15 years of unfair reproaches"

The noise in the hall began to subside. Spit again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

There was dead silence in the hall. Lawyer again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

There was a slight rustle in the hall, but the speech did not begin. Again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

Here the dissatisfied roar of the people, who had been waiting for the long-awaited spectacle, echoed in the hall. And Plevako again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

At this point the audience exploded with indignation, perceiving everything as a mockery of the respectable audience. And from the podium again:

Gentlemen of the jury!

Something unimaginable began. The hall roared along with the judge, prosecutor and assessors. And finally Plevako raised his hand, calling on the people to calm down.

The audience froze, then burst into delighted applause.

The man was acquitted.

"Absolution of Sins"

There is no need to clarify that the priest was acquitted.

"30 kopecks"

The old woman was acquitted.

“I took off my shoes!”

“Gentlemen of the jury,” he declares. “If you sentence my client to a fine, then I ask you to deduct from this amount the cost of washing the sheets that the plaintiff soiled with her shoes.”

The prostitute jumps up and shouts: “It’s not true! I took off my shoes!!!”

There is laughter in the hall. The defendant is acquitted.

"The Omen"

The speech of the famous lawyer lasted several hours, and at the end F.N. Plevako exclaimed: If my client is innocent, the Lord will give a sign about it!

And then the bells rang. The jurors crossed themselves. The meeting lasted several minutes, and the foreman announced a not guilty verdict.

The Gruzinsky case.

This case was considered by the Ostrogozhsky District Court on September 29-30, 1883. Prince G.I. Gruzinsky was accused of the premeditated murder of his children’s former tutor, who later managed the estate of Gruzinsky’s wife, E.F. Schmidt.

The preliminary investigation established the following. E.F. Schmidt, invited by Gruzinsky last. After Gruzinsky demanded that his wife end all relations as a tutor, very quickly became close to his wife with the tutor, and he himself was fired, the wife declared the impossibility of further living with Gruzinsky and demanded the allocation of part of the property belonging to her. Having settled in the estate allocated to her, she invited E.F. to join her as her manager. Schmidt. After the partition, Gruzinsky’s two children lived for some time with their mother in the same estate where Schmidt was the manager. Schmidt often used this to take revenge on Gruzinsky. The latter had limited opportunities for meetings with children; the children were told a lot of incriminating things about Gruzinsky. As a result, being constantly in a tense nervous state during meetings with Schmidt and with children, Gruzinsky killed Schmidt during one of these meetings, shooting him several times with a pistol.

Plevako, defending the defendant, very consistently proves the absence of intent in his actions and the need to qualify them as committed in a state of insanity. He focuses on the prince’s feelings at the time of the crime, his relationship with his wife, and his love for his children. He tells the story of the prince, about his meeting with the “clerk from the store”, about his relationship with the old princess, about how the prince took care of his wife and children. The eldest son was growing up, the prince was taking him to St. Petersburg, to school. There he falls ill with a fever. The prince experiences three attacks, during which he manages to return to Moscow - “A tenderly loving father and husband want to see his family.”

“It was then that the prince, who had not yet left his bed, had to experience terrible grief. Once he hears - the sick are so sensitive - in the next room the conversation between Schmidt and his wife: they, apparently, are arguing; but their quarrel is so strange: as if they were scolding their own people, and not strangers, then again the speeches are peaceful..., uncomfortable... The prince gets up, gathers his strength..., walks when no one expected him, when they thought that he was chained to the bed... And why are the dear ones scolding - only amusing themselves: Schmidt and the princess are together. , not good together...

The prince fainted and lay on the floor all night. Those caught fled, not even thinking of sending help to the sick person. The prince could not kill the enemy, destroy him, he was weak... He only accepted misfortune into an open heart so that he would never know separation from him."

Plevako claims that he would not yet have dared to accuse the princess and Schmidt, to condemn them to the prince’s sacrifice, if they had left, not boasted of their love, had not insulted him, had not extorted money from him, that this “would have been the hypocrisy of the word.”

The princess lives in her half of the estate. Then she leaves, leaving the children with Schmidt. The prince is angry: he takes the children. But here something irreparable happens. “Schmidt, taking advantage of the fact that the children’s underwear is in the princess’s house where he lives, rejects the demand with an oath and sends an answer that without 300 rubles as a deposit he will not give the prince two shirts and two pants for the children. The hanger-on, the hired lover, stands between the father and children and dares to call him a man who is capable of wasting children’s underwear, takes care of children and demands a deposit of 300 rubles from the father. Not only the father to whom this is said, but a stranger who hears about this makes his hair stand on end!” The next morning the prince saw children in wrinkled shirts. “Father’s heart sank. He turned away from these talking eyes and - what fatherly love will not do - went out into the hallway, got into the carriage prepared for him for the trip and went ... went to ask his rival, enduring shame and humiliation, for a shirt for his children.” .

At night, according to witnesses, Schmidt loaded the guns. The prince had a pistol with him, but this was a habit, not an intention. “I affirm,” said Plevako, “that an ambush awaits him there. Linen, refusal, bail, loaded guns of large and small caliber - everything speaks for my thought.”

He goes to Schmidt. “Of course, his soul could not help but be indignant when he saw the nest of his enemies and began to approach it. Here it is - the place where, in the hours of his grief and suffering, they - his enemies - laugh and rejoice at his misfortune. Here it is - a lair where the honor of the family, his honor, and all the interests of his children were sacrificed to the animal voluptuousness of the scoundrel. Here it is - a place where not only was his present taken away, but his past happiness was also taken away, poisoning him with suspicions...

God forbid we experience such moments!

In this mood he drives, approaches the house, knocks on the door. door.

They won't let him in. The footman speaks of the order not to accept.

The prince conveys that he doesn’t need anything other than linen.

But instead of fulfilling his legal demand, instead of finally politely refusing, he hears abuse, abuse from the lips of his wife’s lover, directed at him, who does not do any insult on his part.

Have you heard about this swearing: “Let the scoundrel leave, don’t you dare knock, this is my house! Get out, I’ll shoot.”

The prince's whole being was indignant. The enemy stood close and laughed so brazenly. The prince could have known that he was armed from his family, who had heard from Tsybulin. And the prince could not help but believe that he was capable of everything evil.”

He shoots. “But listen, gentlemen,” says the defender, “was there a living place in his soul at that terrible moment?” “The prince could not cope with these feelings. They are too legal, these are for them” “The husband sees a man ready to desecrate the purity of the marriage bed; the father is present at the scene of the seduction of his daughter; the high priest sees the impending blasphemy - and, besides them, there is no one to save the right and shrine. It is not a vicious feeling of malice that rises in their soul, but a righteous feeling of vengeance and defense of the violated right. It is legal, it is holy;

Concluding his speech, Fyodor Nikiforovich said: “Oh, how happy I would be if, having measured and compared with your own understanding the strength of his patience and struggle with himself, and the force of oppression over him of the soul-disturbing pictures of his family misfortune, you admitted that he cannot be charged with the charges brought against him, and his defender is entirely to blame for his insufficient ability to carry out the task he has taken upon himself...”

The jury returned a not guilty verdict, finding that the crime was committed in a state of insanity.

"Begin!"

From the memories of Plevako... Once a rich Moscow merchant turned to him for help. Plevako says: “I heard about this merchant. I decided that I would charge such a fee that the merchant would be horrified. But not only was he not surprised, but he also said:

Just win my case. I’ll pay what you said, and I’ll also give you pleasure.

What kind of pleasure?

Win the case, you'll see.

I won the case. The merchant paid the fee. I reminded him of the promised pleasure. The merchant says:

On Sunday, around ten in the morning, I’ll pick you up and let’s go.

Where to this early?

Look, you'll see.

Kupchina asks the man:

That's right, your lordship.

We walk through the yard. The little man opened a door. We walked in, looked and didn’t understand anything. A huge room, shelves along the walls, dishes on the shelves.

The merchant sent the peasant out, stripped off his fur coat and offered me to take it off. I undress. The merchant went to the corner, took two hefty clubs, gave one of them to me and said:

Get started.

So what to start?

Like what? Break the dishes!

Why hit her? - The merchant smiled.

Well, did you enjoy it?

I had to admit that I received it."

Defense and representation in criminal cases; representation of interests in civil disputes and arbitration. Credit disputes. Tax disputes. Corporate disputes. Land disputes. Consultations. Drafting of documents.

A website is not a mass media; the author is not responsible for evaluative publications, including comments left by third parties. Information published on the site cannot be used as evidence in legal proceedings.