Common Mistakes in Russian Law Expert Evidence — and How Foreign Lawyers Can Avoid Them
Practical guide for foreign lawyers on common mistakes in Russian law expert evidence, including translations, late instructions, factual assumptions, sanctions, Article 248 risk, advocacy tone and cross-examination preparation.
Common Mistakes in Russian Law Expert Evidence — and How Foreign Lawyers Can Avoid Them
Russian law expert evidence is most useful when it is clear, independent and tied to the issues the court or tribunal actually needs to decide.
It is least useful when it arrives too late, reads like advocacy, relies on translations without legal analysis, or tries to answer questions that have not been properly defined.
Foreign lawyers often instruct a Russian law expert in high-pressure situations: an English court deadline, a US Rule 44.1 filing, an arbitration report, a sanctions-affected dispute, a Russian defendant, a limitation point, a corporate authority issue, or parallel Russian proceedings. The pressure is understandable. But avoidable mistakes at the instruction stage can weaken the evidence, increase cost and make the expert’s work less persuasive.
This article identifies common mistakes in Russian law expert evidence and explains how foreign lawyers can avoid them.
It is written from the perspective of an independent Russian law expert with 25 years’ experience and English-language legal analysis capability. It is not advice on English, Irish, EU, US or arbitral procedure. Foreign counsel should determine procedural strategy in the relevant forum.
It is least useful when it arrives too late, reads like advocacy, relies on translations without legal analysis, or tries to answer questions that have not been properly defined.
Foreign lawyers often instruct a Russian law expert in high-pressure situations: an English court deadline, a US Rule 44.1 filing, an arbitration report, a sanctions-affected dispute, a Russian defendant, a limitation point, a corporate authority issue, or parallel Russian proceedings. The pressure is understandable. But avoidable mistakes at the instruction stage can weaken the evidence, increase cost and make the expert’s work less persuasive.
This article identifies common mistakes in Russian law expert evidence and explains how foreign lawyers can avoid them.
It is written from the perspective of an independent Russian law expert with 25 years’ experience and English-language legal analysis capability. It is not advice on English, Irish, EU, US or arbitral procedure. Foreign counsel should determine procedural strategy in the relevant forum.
Mistake 1 — Relying Only on Translations
Why it matters
A translation of Russian legislation is not the same as Russian law analysis.
A statute may look simple in English, but the legal meaning may depend on Russian legal terminology, court practice, mandatory rules, procedural context or the interaction between several Russian legal instruments. A translated provision may also use familiar English words that do not carry the same meaning under Russian law.
This is particularly risky in disputes involving Russian corporate authority, limitation periods, contract invalidity, sanctions-affected performance, Russian court procedure or enforcement risk.
The English Supreme Court has recognised that expert evidence is not always required merely to identify the text of a foreign law, but that some foreign law texts may require skilled explanation by a lawyer expert in that system.
How to avoid it
Use translations as source material, not as the conclusion.
Ask the Russian law expert to explain:
A useful expert report should not simply attach translated provisions. It should explain Russian law in a way that the foreign legal team, court or tribunal can actually use.
A translation of Russian legislation is not the same as Russian law analysis.
A statute may look simple in English, but the legal meaning may depend on Russian legal terminology, court practice, mandatory rules, procedural context or the interaction between several Russian legal instruments. A translated provision may also use familiar English words that do not carry the same meaning under Russian law.
This is particularly risky in disputes involving Russian corporate authority, limitation periods, contract invalidity, sanctions-affected performance, Russian court procedure or enforcement risk.
The English Supreme Court has recognised that expert evidence is not always required merely to identify the text of a foreign law, but that some foreign law texts may require skilled explanation by a lawyer expert in that system.
How to avoid it
Use translations as source material, not as the conclusion.
Ask the Russian law expert to explain:
- what the Russian legal text means in context;
- whether court practice affects the interpretation;
- whether the translated wording creates any misleading English-law analogy;
- how the rule applies to the assumed facts.
A useful expert report should not simply attach translated provisions. It should explain Russian law in a way that the foreign legal team, court or tribunal can actually use.
Mistake 2 — Instructing the Expert Too Late
Why it matters
Late instructions create weak expert evidence.
If the expert is first contacted a few days before a report deadline, there may be insufficient time to review documents, clarify assumptions, check Russian court practice, consider alternative views, prepare a reasoned report and answer counsel’s questions.
Late instruction is especially risky where Russian law affects pleadings, limitation, jurisdiction, corporate authority, sanctions-affected performance, service, Article 248 risk, enforcement or settlement strategy. These issues can shape the case long before trial or hearing.
In English civil proceedings, expert evidence is also subject to procedural control. CPR 35.1 states that expert evidence is restricted to what is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings, and CPR 35.4 provides that a party may not call an expert or put an expert’s report in evidence without the court’s permission.
How to avoid it
Instruct early, even if only for a preliminary view.
A short initial Russian law memorandum can help counsel decide whether full expert evidence is needed, which questions should be pleaded, whether the issue is material, and what documents should be preserved or disclosed.
For urgent matters, narrow the task. A focused question is better than a rushed general report.
Late instructions create weak expert evidence.
If the expert is first contacted a few days before a report deadline, there may be insufficient time to review documents, clarify assumptions, check Russian court practice, consider alternative views, prepare a reasoned report and answer counsel’s questions.
Late instruction is especially risky where Russian law affects pleadings, limitation, jurisdiction, corporate authority, sanctions-affected performance, service, Article 248 risk, enforcement or settlement strategy. These issues can shape the case long before trial or hearing.
In English civil proceedings, expert evidence is also subject to procedural control. CPR 35.1 states that expert evidence is restricted to what is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings, and CPR 35.4 provides that a party may not call an expert or put an expert’s report in evidence without the court’s permission.
How to avoid it
Instruct early, even if only for a preliminary view.
A short initial Russian law memorandum can help counsel decide whether full expert evidence is needed, which questions should be pleaded, whether the issue is material, and what documents should be preserved or disclosed.
For urgent matters, narrow the task. A focused question is better than a rushed general report.
Mistake 3 — Skipping a Proper Conflict Check
Why it matters
A conflict check is not an administrative formality. It protects the integrity of the instruction and the credibility of the expert.
Russia-related disputes often involve complex corporate structures, sanctioned parties, beneficial owners, insurers, funders, affiliates, banks, state entities and parallel proceedings. A party may appear under different transliterations or through related companies.
If conflicts are checked only after confidential material has been sent, the instruction may become difficult or impossible to manage.
How to avoid it
Before sending sensitive documents, provide:
A short conflict email should include the forum, deadline and broad topic, but not unnecessary confidential detail.
A conflict check is not an administrative formality. It protects the integrity of the instruction and the credibility of the expert.
Russia-related disputes often involve complex corporate structures, sanctioned parties, beneficial owners, insurers, funders, affiliates, banks, state entities and parallel proceedings. A party may appear under different transliterations or through related companies.
If conflicts are checked only after confidential material has been sent, the instruction may become difficult or impossible to manage.
How to avoid it
Before sending sensitive documents, provide:
- full party names;
- Russian names, if available;
- OGRN, INN or other corporate identifiers for Russian entities;
- parent companies and affiliates;
- key individuals;
- insurers, funders or banks, if relevant;
- law firms and arbitral institutions, where relevant;
- related Russian proceedings.
A short conflict email should include the forum, deadline and broad topic, but not unnecessary confidential detail.
Mistake 4 — Asking Overbroad or Advocacy-Driven Questions
Why it matters
Poorly framed questions produce poor evidence.
A question such as “Please confirm that our client is right under Russian law” is not an expert question. It is advocacy disguised as instruction.
Overbroad questions are also problematic. “Please explain Russian contract law” is too general. The court or tribunal does not need a textbook. It needs answers to defined issues.
How to avoid it
Ask neutral, precise questions tied to facts and documents.
Instead of:
“Please confirm that the Russian company had no authority.”
Ask:
“Under Russian law, assuming the facts set out in the instructions, did the general director of the Russian company have authority to sign the agreement? What corporate documents, approvals or registry materials are relevant to that analysis?”
Instead of:
“Please support our limitation defence.”
Ask:
“What limitation period would apply under Russian law to the claim described in the pleadings, when would that period start, and what facts could affect suspension, interruption or expiry?”
Good questions produce evidence that is more credible, more useful and easier to defend under questioning.
Poorly framed questions produce poor evidence.
A question such as “Please confirm that our client is right under Russian law” is not an expert question. It is advocacy disguised as instruction.
Overbroad questions are also problematic. “Please explain Russian contract law” is too general. The court or tribunal does not need a textbook. It needs answers to defined issues.
How to avoid it
Ask neutral, precise questions tied to facts and documents.
Instead of:
“Please confirm that the Russian company had no authority.”
Ask:
“Under Russian law, assuming the facts set out in the instructions, did the general director of the Russian company have authority to sign the agreement? What corporate documents, approvals or registry materials are relevant to that analysis?”
Instead of:
“Please support our limitation defence.”
Ask:
“What limitation period would apply under Russian law to the claim described in the pleadings, when would that period start, and what facts could affect suspension, interruption or expiry?”
Good questions produce evidence that is more credible, more useful and easier to defend under questioning.
Mistake 5 — Failing to Define Factual Assumptions
Why it matters
A Russian law expert should not silently decide disputed facts.
Many Russian law issues depend on assumed facts: who signed a document, when notice was received, whether a corporate approval existed, whether a payment was blocked, whether proceedings were commenced, whether an address was valid, or whether a party was affected by sanctions.
If the report does not identify assumptions, the expert may appear to be making factual findings outside their role.
How to avoid it
Provide a clear assumptions section.
Where facts are disputed, ask for alternative analysis:
“Assuming the notice was received on 10 March, what follows under Russian law? Would the analysis differ if the court finds that receipt occurred on 25 March?”
This approach is particularly useful in disputes involving authority, limitation, notices, termination, payment restrictions, Russian proceedings and sanctions-affected performance.
A Russian law expert should not silently decide disputed facts.
Many Russian law issues depend on assumed facts: who signed a document, when notice was received, whether a corporate approval existed, whether a payment was blocked, whether proceedings were commenced, whether an address was valid, or whether a party was affected by sanctions.
If the report does not identify assumptions, the expert may appear to be making factual findings outside their role.
How to avoid it
Provide a clear assumptions section.
Where facts are disputed, ask for alternative analysis:
“Assuming the notice was received on 10 March, what follows under Russian law? Would the analysis differ if the court finds that receipt occurred on 25 March?”
This approach is particularly useful in disputes involving authority, limitation, notices, termination, payment restrictions, Russian proceedings and sanctions-affected performance.
Mistake 6 — Ignoring Russian Court Practice
Why it matters
Russian law is not only legislation.
Court practice may be critical to understanding how Russian rules operate in real disputes. This is especially important for contract invalidity, corporate approvals, limitation, penalties, insolvency, enforcement, public policy, Article 248, sanctions-related arguments and arbitrazh court procedure.
A report that quotes Russian statutes but ignores Russian court practice may be technically incomplete.
How to avoid it
Ask the expert to identify the relevant Russian legal sources, including:
The report should explain not only what the rule says, but how Russian courts are likely to approach the issue, where that can be assessed.
Russian law is not only legislation.
Court practice may be critical to understanding how Russian rules operate in real disputes. This is especially important for contract invalidity, corporate approvals, limitation, penalties, insolvency, enforcement, public policy, Article 248, sanctions-related arguments and arbitrazh court procedure.
A report that quotes Russian statutes but ignores Russian court practice may be technically incomplete.
How to avoid it
Ask the expert to identify the relevant Russian legal sources, including:
- statutes and codes;
- Supreme Court guidance, where relevant;
- arbitrazh court practice;
- regulatory materials;
- official explanations or decrees;
- procedural rules;
- any conflicting or developing practice.
The report should explain not only what the rule says, but how Russian courts are likely to approach the issue, where that can be assessed.
Mistake 7 — Confusing Russian Law Analysis with UK, EU or US Sanctions Advice
Why it matters
Sanctions-affected disputes often involve multiple legal systems. A foreign lawyer may need UK, EU or US sanctions advice and Russian law analysis, but those are not the same task.
A Russian law expert can address Russian countermeasures, Russian payment restrictions, permissions, approvals, Russian proceedings, Article 248 risk and Russian law consequences of performance or non-performance.
That does not make the Russian law expert a UK, EU or US sanctions lawyer.
How to avoid it
Separate the workstreams.
Local sanctions counsel should advise on whether the client can lawfully pay, receive funds, provide services, deal with a designated person, continue proceedings or implement a settlement under the relevant sanctions regime.
The Russian law expert should answer Russian law questions such as:
This division makes the overall advice clearer and safer.
Sanctions-affected disputes often involve multiple legal systems. A foreign lawyer may need UK, EU or US sanctions advice and Russian law analysis, but those are not the same task.
A Russian law expert can address Russian countermeasures, Russian payment restrictions, permissions, approvals, Russian proceedings, Article 248 risk and Russian law consequences of performance or non-performance.
That does not make the Russian law expert a UK, EU or US sanctions lawyer.
How to avoid it
Separate the workstreams.
Local sanctions counsel should advise on whether the client can lawfully pay, receive funds, provide services, deal with a designated person, continue proceedings or implement a settlement under the relevant sanctions regime.
The Russian law expert should answer Russian law questions such as:
- what Russian measures may affect performance;
- whether Russian permissions or approvals are required;
- whether Russian law restricts payment or transfer;
- how Russian courts may treat the dispute;
- whether Russian proceedings create risk;
- whether settlement mechanics can work under Russian law.
This division makes the overall advice clearer and safer.
Mistake 8 — Missing Article 248 Risk
Why it matters
In sanctions-affected disputes, Article 248 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code can change the procedural landscape.
Articles 248.1 and 248.2 have been used in disputes involving sanctioned Russian parties to argue for Russian court jurisdiction and to seek orders restraining foreign court or arbitration proceedings. Recent commentary notes that Russian courts may issue anti-suit or anti-arbitration injunctions under Article 248.2 and that such injunctions can be backed by fines up to the amount in dispute.
This risk matters for arbitration counsel, disputes teams and enforcement lawyers because it can create parallel proceedings, settlement pressure, asset risk and enforcement complications.
How to avoid it
Screen for Article 248 early where any of the following is present:
“What Article 248 arguments could be advanced on the facts provided, and what Russian law objections may be available?”
A balanced question is more useful than asking for a one-sided answer.
In sanctions-affected disputes, Article 248 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code can change the procedural landscape.
Articles 248.1 and 248.2 have been used in disputes involving sanctioned Russian parties to argue for Russian court jurisdiction and to seek orders restraining foreign court or arbitration proceedings. Recent commentary notes that Russian courts may issue anti-suit or anti-arbitration injunctions under Article 248.2 and that such injunctions can be backed by fines up to the amount in dispute.
This risk matters for arbitration counsel, disputes teams and enforcement lawyers because it can create parallel proceedings, settlement pressure, asset risk and enforcement complications.
How to avoid it
Screen for Article 248 early where any of the following is present:
- Russian party;
- sanctioned or sanctions-affected party;
- foreign arbitration clause;
- Russian assets;
- payment restrictions;
- Russian proceedings threatened or commenced;
- state-linked Russian counterparty;
- dispute involving blocked performance or counter-sanctions.
“What Article 248 arguments could be advanced on the facts provided, and what Russian law objections may be available?”
A balanced question is more useful than asking for a one-sided answer.
Mistake 9 — Allowing the Report to Sound Like Advocacy
Why it matters
An expert report should not read like a pleading.
In England and Wales, CPR 35.3 provides that the expert’s duty is to help the court on matters within the expert’s expertise, and that this duty overrides any obligation to the person instructing or paying the expert. Practice Direction 35 states that expert evidence should be the independent product of the expert, that experts should provide objective and unbiased opinions, and that they should not assume the role of an advocate.
The same principle is good practice in arbitration and US foreign law evidence. An expert who overstates the position, ignores contrary sources or adopts counsel’s advocacy language is easier to challenge.
How to avoid it
Keep the report independent.
A strong Russian law report should:
Independence does not weaken the evidence. It makes it more credible.
An expert report should not read like a pleading.
In England and Wales, CPR 35.3 provides that the expert’s duty is to help the court on matters within the expert’s expertise, and that this duty overrides any obligation to the person instructing or paying the expert. Practice Direction 35 states that expert evidence should be the independent product of the expert, that experts should provide objective and unbiased opinions, and that they should not assume the role of an advocate.
The same principle is good practice in arbitration and US foreign law evidence. An expert who overstates the position, ignores contrary sources or adopts counsel’s advocacy language is easier to challenge.
How to avoid it
Keep the report independent.
A strong Russian law report should:
- identify the questions asked;
- state the assumptions;
- list materials reviewed;
- explain relevant Russian sources;
- give reasons;
- identify uncertainty;
- address material contrary arguments;
- stay within the expert’s expertise;
- avoid argumentative language.
Independence does not weaken the evidence. It makes it more credible.
Mistake 10 — Not Preparing for Questions, Cross-Examination or Deposition
Why it matters
Russian law evidence may be tested.
In English litigation, there may be written questions to experts, expert discussions or cross-examination. CPR Part 35 includes a mechanism for written questions to experts and expert discussions. In US federal litigation, Rule 44.1 allows the court to consider relevant material or sources, including testimony, when determining foreign law, and treats the court’s determination as a ruling on a question of law.
In arbitration, the expert may be questioned by counsel, the tribunal or the opposing expert.
If the expert has not prepared properly, weaknesses in assumptions, translations, source selection or reasoning may become obvious.
How to avoid it
Prepare the expert for the actual procedural setting.
Before questions or hearing, review:
The expert should be ready to explain Russian law clearly, not to argue the whole case.
Russian law evidence may be tested.
In English litigation, there may be written questions to experts, expert discussions or cross-examination. CPR Part 35 includes a mechanism for written questions to experts and expert discussions. In US federal litigation, Rule 44.1 allows the court to consider relevant material or sources, including testimony, when determining foreign law, and treats the court’s determination as a ruling on a question of law.
In arbitration, the expert may be questioned by counsel, the tribunal or the opposing expert.
If the expert has not prepared properly, weaknesses in assumptions, translations, source selection or reasoning may become obvious.
How to avoid it
Prepare the expert for the actual procedural setting.
Before questions or hearing, review:
- the report;
- Russian legal sources relied on;
- assumptions;
- documents reviewed;
- translations;
- opposing expert evidence;
- areas of agreement and disagreement;
- issues outside the expert’s role.
The expert should be ready to explain Russian law clearly, not to argue the whole case.
Practical Checklist for Foreign Lawyers
Before instructing a Russian law expert, prepare:
What to prepare | Why it matters |
Parties and related entities | Conflict check before sensitive documents are shared. |
Forum and procedural posture | Determines whether the output is a memo, report, declaration, affidavit or arbitration report. |
Procedural timetable | Allows realistic planning for report, reply report, questions or hearing. |
Pleadings or memorials | Shows how Russian law fits the live issues. |
Key contracts and amendments | Essential for governing law, performance, authority, termination and remedies. |
Corporate documents | Relevant to Russian company authority, approvals and registry issues. |
Correspondence and notices | May affect limitation, termination, payment and factual assumptions. |
Russian court documents | Important for procedure, Article 248, enforcement and parallel proceedings. |
Sanctions context | Helps separate Russian law analysis from UK, EU or US sanctions advice. |
Neutral questions | Keeps the expert’s work focused and independent. |
Factual assumptions | Prevents the expert from appearing to decide disputed facts. |
Final Point: Good Expert Evidence Starts With Good Instructions
The strongest Russian law expert evidence is not the longest report. It is the report that answers the right questions, on the right assumptions, in clear English, with proper Russian legal reasoning and without advocacy.
Foreign lawyers do not need generic commentary on Russian law. They need case-specific analysis that explains how Russian law applies to the documents, parties, facts and procedural situation before the court or tribunal.
Early scoping, precise questions, clear assumptions and respect for expert independence usually produce better evidence, lower cost and fewer surprises.
Foreign lawyers do not need generic commentary on Russian law. They need case-specific analysis that explains how Russian law applies to the documents, parties, facts and procedural situation before the court or tribunal.
Early scoping, precise questions, clear assumptions and respect for expert independence usually produce better evidence, lower cost and fewer surprises.
Request a Confidential Conflict Check
I assist foreign law firms, counsel, arbitration teams and in-house legal departments with independent Russian law analysis for litigation, arbitration, sanctions-affected disputes, Russian proceedings, Article 248 risk, enforcement and cross-border matters.
Support may include expert opinions, legal memoranda, court-ready reports, Rule 44.1 declarations, affidavits, arbitration reports, reply analysis and preparation for questions or cross-examination.
For an initial review, please send the parties’ names, forum, procedural deadline, short case summary, Russian law issue and required format.
Support may include expert opinions, legal memoranda, court-ready reports, Rule 44.1 declarations, affidavits, arbitration reports, reply analysis and preparation for questions or cross-examination.
For an initial review, please send the parties’ names, forum, procedural deadline, short case summary, Russian law issue and required format.
