The attorney representing the singer Lyubov Uspenskaya, Elena Senina, offered remarks following a recent court appearance involving the artist and Philip Kirkorov, a session that Uspenskaya herself did not attend. The information came from coverage by kp.ru, which provided a concise summary of the event and the surrounding legal context.
Senina clarified that no plan to attend or participate in court sessions with Kirkorov had ever been discussed with her, emphasizing a clear boundary around the management of the artist’s public and private commitments. She expressed a firm belief that Kirkorov’s current priorities lie elsewhere, suggesting that the issue at hand is not a focal point for him at this moment. In her view, the situation does not merit diversion from what she described as more pressing professional obligations or personal endeavors that require attention and steadiness during unstable times.
According to the lawyer, Uspenskaya is presently engaged with matters she considers pertinent to her career and public responsibilities. Senina signaled that the artist intends to remain focused on activities that are meaningful to her artistic output and to the broader audience she serves, rather than allowing disputes to intrude on her creative work or public appearances. This stance reflects a broader pattern of prioritizing constructive work over confrontation during a period marked by significant national and social events.
Senina elaborated that in the current climate for the country, the singer’s decision is to devote energy to constructive endeavors. She pointed out that Uspenskaya believes it is important to contribute to the cultural and social landscape in ways that resonate with citizens and supporters, even when high-profile conflicts arise in the entertainment industry. The lawyer added that Kirkorov has chosen not to engage in party scenes or to showcase personal disputes publicly, a position Senina described as a deliberate effort to maintain professional integrity and avoid the distraction of private disputes becoming public matters.
During broadcast remarks on a separate program, Uspenskaya herself publicly described Kirkorov in strong terms, labeling him a misogynist. Kirkorov responded by pursuing legal action, asserting that the remarks damaged his honor, dignity, and business reputation. He sought a monetary compensation of 10 million rubles and an additional 2 million rubles to cover legal expenses stemming from what he characterized as a harmful statement that affected his professional standing and public persona.
The forthcoming court session was scheduled for the next hearing on April 4, a date that observers will be watching closely as further developments unfold. The case has drawn attention not only for the personalities involved but also for the broader implications it may have for celebrity speech, reputational harm, and the interplay between artistic careers and public commentary in contemporary media culture. Stakeholders on both sides have indicated a willingness to engage with the legal process while continuing to pursue their respective artistic and professional agendas.
Earlier, Nikas Safronov provided remarks about the enduring legacy of Svetlana Morgunova, touching on themes of artistic influence and the responsibilities of public figures in preserving and interpreting cultural heritage for the audience. This commentary situates the current dispute within a longer continuum of public discourse around celebrity, legacy, and accountability in the performing arts landscape.