Abstract: The subject of this research is the European, American and Russian legal experience in the area of pretrial reconciliation procedure (mediation). In particular, the author examines the historical path of the development of the institution of mediation on Europe, United States and Russia, as well as the modern European, American and Russian achievements in this regard. A detailed analysis is conducted on the causes and purpose of creating of such regulatory procedure; attention is turned to the various factors of their creation in the continental and Anglo-Saxon law. Methodological base is structure on the general scientific method of cognition, which reflects the correlation between the theory and law enforcement practice; a comparative legal method allows viewing the theoretical insights and pretrial proceedings, as well as the extensive practical application of mediation. The main conclusion lied in identification and analysis of the priority trends in development of the institution of mediation in Europe, United States and Russian Federation. The author reveals that the causes for creating such procedures in the continental and Anglo-Saxon law vary: if the United States attempts to broaden the access of citizens to justice, the European states pursued a different goal – to relieve the court system from the excessive amount of legal proceedings.

Keywords: conflicting parties, arbitrator, judicial reconciliation, regulatory framework, legal experience, mediator, mediation, pre-trial reconciliation, alternative dispute resolution, cross-border disputes

References:
Arutyunyan A. Mediatsiya v ugolovnom protsesse. M.: Infotropik-Media, 2013. 292 s.
Serge Guinchard, Droit processuel, 9e ed. Dalloz, 2017, 1516 p.
Roger Fisher, Daniel Shapiro. Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate. — 1 edition (September 26, 2006). — Penguin Books, 2006. 246 P.
Roger Fisher, Alan Sharp, John Richardson. Getting It Done: How to Lead When You're Not in Charge. — HarperBusiness, 1999. 219 P.
Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, Sheila Heen, Roger Fisher. Difficult conversations how to discuss what matters most. — 1 edition (April 2000). — Penguin Books, 2000. 250 P.
A Dialogue between Professor Frank Sander and Mariana Hernandez Crespo: Exploring the Evolution of Multi-Door Courthouse. University of Saint Thomas Law Journal. Vol. 5. 2008. Nr. 3. P. 665 – 674.
Rodzher Fisher, Uil'yam Uri. Peregovory bez porazheniya. Garvardskiy metod. — Mann, Ivanov i Ferber, 2012. 347 s.
Endryus N. Sistema grazhdanskogo protsessa v Anglii. M.: Infotropik-media, 2012. 544 s.
Pel' M. Priglashenie k med

Abstract: The subject of this research is the legislative norms that regulate responsibility for violation of the legal professional privilege in the Russian Federation and countries of the former USSR. The object of this research is the content of responsibility for violation of the legal professional privilege in the Russian Federation and countries of the former USSR. The author carefully examines the interconnection between the adopted legislative measures and increased infringement of the legal professional privilege. Special attention is given to the foreign experience of the countries of former Soviet Union in the area of regulating responsibility for infringement of the legal professional privilege. The author formulates proposition on introducing changes into the existing legislation that regulates responsibility form impeding the legal activity of the lawyers. It is underline that despite the implementation of administrative responsibility, takes place the increase in infringement of the legal professional responsibility; therefore, it results in the need for adoption of transformative measures for protecting the lawyers in their legal activity. The author’s special contribution consists in the analysis of legislation of the countries with similar legal regulation, as well as determination of the legislative gap with regards to these countries in the question of regulation of responsibility for impacting the legal activity of the lawyers.

Keywords: Criminal law, Legal regulation, Defender, Lawyer, Obstruction of activity of the lawyer, Russian Federation, legal professional privilege, professional rights of the lawyer, acitivty of the lawyers, Criminal liability

References:
Ugolovno-protsessual'nyy kodeks Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 18 dekabrya 2001 № 174-FZ (red. ot 17 aprelya 2017 g.) // Rossiyskaya gazeta. 2001. 22 dekabrya. № 249.
Kodeks Rossiyskoy Federatsii ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh ot 30.12.2001 № 195-FZ (red. ot 17 aprelya 2017 g.) // Rossiyskaya gazeta. 2001. 31 dekabrya. № 256.
Federal'nyy zakon "Ob advokatskoy deyatel'nosti i advokature v Rossiyskoy Federatsii" ot 31 maya 2002 g. № 63-FZ (red. ot 02 iyunya 2016 g.) // Rossiyskaya gazeta. 5 iyunya. 2002. № 100.
Federal'nyy zakon "O vnesenii izmeneniy v Ugolovno-protsessual'nyy kodeks Rossiyskoy Federatsii" ot 17 aprelya 2017 № 73-FZ // Rossiyskaya gazeta. 2017. 19 aprelya. №83.
Ugolovnyy kodeks Kyrgyzskoy Respubliki ot 1 oktyabrya 1997 goda № 68 (red. ot 2 marta 2017 g.) // Vedomosti Zhogorku Kenesha Kyrgyzskoy Respubliki. 1998. № 7. St. 229.
Zakon KR «O vnesenii dopolneniy i izmeneniy v Ugolovnyy kodeks Kyrgyzskoy Respubliki i Ugolovno-protsessual'nyy kodeks Kyrgyzskoy Respubliki» ot 16 oktyabrya 2002 goda № 141 // Pechatnye