Immediately after Khodorkovsky had been read the confirmation of his conviction, his lawyers were put under unprecedented pressure.

On September 22, 2005 – the verdict in the Khodorkovsky-Lebedev case was handed down in the Arbitration Court of Moscow City Court

On the night on September 22-23, several people arrived in the hotel room in which Robert Amsterdam, Khodorkovsky’s Canadian lawyer, was staying. They introduced themselves as officers of the Federal Security Service (FSB), but refused to show their IDs. The lawyer’s passport was taken by them on the pretext of a visa validity check; and they also carried out a search of his personal belongings and papers. Afterwards the passport was given back with the visa revoked, and the lawyer was ordered to leave Russian territory within 24 hours.

On September 23 it became nown that deputy general prosecutor Yuri Biryukov had issued a report to the Ministry of Justice on Khodorkovsky’s nine lawyers, who, in the prosecutor’s opinion, had unlawfully refused to speak for their client in the superior court. The deputy general prosecutor recommended the disbarment of Elena Levina, Denis Dyatlev, Anton Drel, Igor Mikheev, Karinna Moskalenko, Vladimir Sergeev, Albert Mkrtychev, Olga Artyukhova and Yuri Schmidt. The Ministry of Justice in turn issued a statement to the Moscow Bar Association requesting it to consider a case questioning the legal standing of three lawyers – Elena Levina, Anton Drel and Denis Dyatlev. Yuri Schmidt’s case was forwarded to the Saint Petersburg Bar Association. As is well known a defence lawyer may participate in a trial either by agreement or by appointment. None of the above-mentioned lawyers had come to the agreement required with Mr. Khodorkovsky. Yuri Schmidt appeared in court only after he had become his lawyer by appointment.

On October 5 the office of lawyer Anton Drel on Jukovka-88 Street was searched, a search that continued well beyond midnight. The search was conducted in the presence of the lawyer’s assistants but in the absence of the lawyer himself. Only around midnight was Anton Drel permitted to enter his own work-area.

On October 6 an unauthorized search was carried out at the offices of lawyers Denis Dyatlev and Albert Mkrtychev. From the statement given out to justify the search it was impossible to deduce what was the reason for it. In fact the written requests of the lawyers, as well as the replies to their requests, were all removed. Also taken were other papers from the lawyers’ files relating to the Khodorkovsky and Lebedev case and to a number of other clients, directly labeled as such. No inventory of the removed materials was made.

On October 6, following the submission of her own application (‘for family reasons’) lawyer Olga Artyukhova was stripped of her status as a lawyer. According to unidentified lawyers not connected to the Khodorkovsky case, the reason for her resignation may have been the pressure put on her by the General Prosecutor’s Office.

On October 7 the General Prosecutor’s Office spread word that the searches executed on the premises of Khodorkovsky’s lawyers had never taken place.

On October 21 the Qualifications Commission of the Moscow Bar Association, followed by the Council of the Moscow Bar Association (on October 27), failed to find in the conduct of defence lawyers Anton Drel, Elena Levina and Denis Dyatlev any evidence of disciplinary offenses which could be regarded as
violations of the Law on the Bar or the Code of Conduct of Bar members

On November 10 the Qualifications Commission of the Saint Petersburg Bar Association declined to disbar Yuri Schmidt, after failing to find any evidence in his conduct of disciplinary offences which could be regarded as violations of the professional ethical standards.

On November 15 the administration of the Krasnokamensk colony sent a request to the Main Department of Moscow’s Federal Registration Service to strip lawyer Albert Mkrtychev of his lawyer’s status. This request devolved on an incident that occurred during a visit to his client. In passing the checkpoint, the lawyer had taken out a folder of documents for discussion with his client, particularly, the supervisory-complaint theses and papers needed for the filing of a lawsuit before the Strasbourg Court. The rest of the papers he brought with him were left behind at the checkpoint. Once the visit came to an end, the lawyer was invited to the office of the deputy head of the colony and was told to submit all his documents, including those that had not been taken by the lawyer onto colony premises. Moreover it was members of colony staff who were appointed as witnesses to the incident. As a result a number of documents were removed. The lawyer drew up an explanatory note in which he stated that the papers in question had not been brought into any colony building during his visit to Khodorkovsky. However they were not handed over to to the Moscow Registration Service, They simply disappeared.

On November 15-17 – on their way to a visit with the client in the Krasnokamensk Penal Colony, lawyers Albert Mkrtychev, Denis Dyatlov, Elena Levina and Irina Khrunova were kept waiting outside in sub-zero weather. They were then given a full-body search at the entrance building of the colony during which they were made to strip down to their underwear. The searches were conducted without witnesses, nor was any protocol written up.

On November 25 Mr. Khodorkovsky’s lawyer Albert Mkrtychev was summoned to the Main Department of the Moscow Federal Registration Service to explain himself with reference to the the incident that took place on November 15. The lawyer does not rule out the possibility that the Moscow Registration Service may apply to the Moscow Bar Association with a request to disbar him.

On December 15 the Main Department for the Execution of Punishments in Moscow filed a lawsuit with Moscow’s Kamovniki Court to defend its integrity, dignity and goodwill against lawyers Yuri Schmidt and Evgeni Bar and against Ren TV and its anchorwoman Marianna Maximovskaya.

On December 23 the Qualifications Commission of the Moscow Bar Association, followed by the Council of the Moscow Bar Association (on December 26) failed to find in the conduct of defence lawyer Albert Mkrtychev any evidence of disciplinary offenses which could be regarded as violations of the Law on the Bar or the Code of Conduct of Bar members.