The client of the law firm operating in the field of agriculture, was sued for declaration of the property rights to sprouted grains, obliging him to transfer it to the plaintiff, prohibiting the defendant from sowing the plaintiff's land plots. To the statement of claim a protocol was attached, drawn up in the presence of the director of the law firm client and signed by him. According to this protocol, the sprouted grains were sown by the defendant (the client of the law firm) on the plaintiff’s land plot. The claim was also accompanied by an expert opinion, independently conducted by the plaintiff without notification of the defendant.

By the decision of the court of the first instance, the claim was fully satisfied and the client was charged with the expenses of the examination conducted by the plaintiff.

When examining the case in the court of appeal, the lawyers of LexProf managed to prove that the plaintiff incorrectly chose the remedy, claims to transfer sprouted grains could not be satisfied, prohibition to seed the land plot in future was illegal, since it concerned the act not done yet. The court of appeal completely reversed the decision of the court of first instance. The court of cassation instance upheld the decision of the court of appeal.