29 measurements spanning 31 days, net -151. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 29,344–29,541 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded, most recent 20 of 29
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
6 Sept 2026, 07:55
29,367
-11
4 Sept 2026, 01:56
29,378
-16
2 Sept 2026, 14:18
29,394
+2
1 Sept 2026, 12:17
29,392
-1
31 Aug 2026, 10:04
29,393
-7
30 Aug 2026, 13:27
29,400
-3
29 Aug 2026, 10:39
29,403
-5
28 Aug 2026, 10:23
29,408
-2
27 Aug 2026, 07:26
29,410
-6
26 Aug 2026, 04:04
29,416
-5
25 Aug 2026, 01:43
29,421
-20
23 Aug 2026, 15:08
29,441
-8
21 Aug 2026, 21:58
29,449
-1
20 Aug 2026, 14:43
29,450
-4
19 Aug 2026, 13:52
29,454
-1
18 Aug 2026, 15:04
29,455
-7
17 Aug 2026, 17:47
29,462
-5
16 Aug 2026, 14:24
29,467
-1
14 Aug 2026, 23:04
29,468
-5
13 Aug 2026, 15:38
29,473
first reading
Engagement
22 posts held, back to 31 December 2025 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 61 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
9.23%
avg views ÷ 29,367 subscribers
Avg views / post
2,710
2 posts measured
Reaction rate
1.85%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
2
of 22 held
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views — note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 2 September 2026
Posts held
22 (31 December 2025 – 2 September 2026)
Views total
5,420
Reactions total
100
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
7 Sept 2026, 01:40 UTC
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
What this channel posts
Photos
91
Videos
8
Links
223
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 7 September 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. Below Telegram’s rounding threshold, so these counts are exact.
Video runtime
29s
Average length
29s
Measured directly from 1 video with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no ≈ mark.
Reaction mix
2,655 reactions across 22 posts, in 15 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 30.8% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
👍
819
30.8%
😁
487
18.3%
❤
430
16.2%
🔥
381
14.4%
🤣
113
4.26%
🤔
100
3.77%
🎉
98
3.69%
👏
87
3.28%
💯
47
1.77%
🙊
46
1.73%
⚡
17
0.64%
🫡
14
0.527%
👌
7
0.264%
🙏
7
0.264%
💋
2
0.075%
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 22 of the 22 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 2,655 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 22 most recent posts we hold, published 31 December 2025 to 2 September 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
Telegram Stars
Stars received
22
across the posts below
Posts paid on
13
of 22 we hold a reading for · 59%
Most on one post
3
single highest reading
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @jurist. Telegram publishes the count on the public post preview alongside ordinary reactions, and this register reads it there. It is the only figure on this site that measures money moving rather than attention.
Stars are not reactions, and the two are never added. They are rendered in the same strip on Telegram and counted in the same shape, but one is a tap and the other is a purchase. The reaction totals and the engagement rate elsewhere on this page exclude every figure in this section, and no rate here is computed against a reaction count.
This is not revenue, and we publish no currency figure. What a Star costs a reader and what it pays a channel are different numbers, Telegram takes a share we cannot observe, and the terms have changed. Converting a Star count into money would be an estimate dressed as a measurement, so the count is where we stop.
Counted over the 22 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 31 December 2025 to 2 September 2026. Star counts above 1,000 reach us in Telegram’s short form and carry the same three-significant-figure rounding as everything else on this page.
Так-так-так! Есть чем похвастаться.
Сегодня получили решение межведомственной комиссии о реабилитации компании нашего доверителя и устранении оснований сразу по 31 отказу.
Ни по одному.
Ни по трём.
Даже ни по десяти.
По тридцати одному!
Чтобы было понятно, насколько это космический результат, хочу рассказать старый советский анекдот:
Два скрипача возвращаются с международного конкурса. Один занял второе место, д…
Про Номинала Номиналовича, площадку бумажного НДС, ФРПВ и другие странные дела
Жена постоянно сидит в запрещённой социальной сети, смотрит рилсики и периодически присылает мне что-то интересное. Обычно это котики и скетчи из семейной жизни, но иногда попадается что-то из профессиональной сферы.
Вот и вчера прилетел рилс, в котором налоговый эксперт рассказывал, как буквально только что (хотя на самом деле ещё в апр…
Плохая идея — судиться с призёром олимпиады по праву. Очень плохая.
Пока школьники сдают ОГЭ и ЕГЭ, всем, кто так или иначе связан с экзаменами и олимпиадами, рекомендую почитать очень любопытный документ — Апелляционное определение СК по гражданским делам Московского городского суда от 31 марта 2026 г. по делу N 33-8913/2026.
Суть дела в следующем. Школьник блестяще пишет заключительный этап Всероссийской олимпиад…
Говорят, сегодня по городу бродят люди в мантиях. Подходят к прохожим, заглядывают в глаза и строго спрашивают: «А ты в прениях выступал?» Заставляют на время правильно оформить ордер и наизусть процитировать статью 51 Конституции. Тех, кто не справляется, отправляют искать свежую судебную практику ВАС.
С днём адвокатуры, коллеги! ⚖️🥂
Чтобы клиент заплатил, нужно его хорошенько напугать
Раньше я думал, что такой логикой руководствуются только «помогаторы» на Авито. Они пугают клиента уголовными делами при блокировке по 161-ФЗ, и тут же обещают всё решить с МВД за 3 тысячи рублей. Классика.
Оказалось, так работают не только они.
Я иногда перехожу по рекламе коллег — юристов и адвокатов из разных сфер. Не конкурентная разведка, просто любопытно п…
Юридическое хамство на 150 миллионов
Эта история о том, как одна строчка в договоре помогла избежать катастрофы.
Первым тревожным звоночком стала цена: участок в пригороде с хорошей локацией стоил подозрительно дёшево — 150 млн рублей. Вторым звоночком оказалась спешка продавца. А третьим… Но давайте обо всём по порядку.
Старый клиент (мы уже побеждали вместе в арбитраже) попросил посмотреть договор на покупку зем…
О проекте «Антидроп»
Честно говоря, не люблю писать о проектах — о том, что кто-то что-то разрабатывает, кто-то что-то планирует. Даже, если сегодня что-то есть в планах, далеко не факт, что это реализуется, а если и реализуется — совсем не факт, что в том виде, в котором задумывалось. Это из разряда «делить шкуру неубитого медведя» и подобным я стараюсь не заниматься.
Но в последнее время всё чаще спрашивают в лич…
«Почему я должен что-то доказывать? У нас вообще-то презумпция невиновности».
Слышу эту фразу чаще, чем «доброе утро». И как бы ни хотелось разрушать идеализированные представления клиента о праве и законе, лучше сделать это раньше. Конечно, презумпция работает не так.
В уголовном процессе презумпция невиновности худо-бедно есть: обвинение собирает достаточные доказательства вины, все сомнения трактуются в пользу о…
Да, это набор для игры в маджонг
Недавно открыл для себя это увлечение. Чем-то напоминает шахматы, чем-то — покер. В игре требуется стратегия, расчёт, умение читать соперников и немного удачи — в общем, довольно знакомый набор навыков по игре в мафию.
У маджонга есть несколько версий. Обычно при слове «маджонг» представляют пасьянс на компьютере, где нужно попарно снимать плитки чтобы разобрать всю конструкцию. На …
Я веду канал сам. Пишу посты тоже сам. Копирайтеров и SMM-щиков не задействую. Поэтому если вижу где-то мой пост — пусть годичной давности, пусть обработанный через ChatGPT — всегда его узнаю. И честно говоря, не знаю, как реагировать. Злиться, что украли идею? Ну как-то мелковато. Гордиться, что копируют мои идеи? Тоже так себе повод для гордости. Принять это как сигнал, что хватит читать новости и пора браться за р…
👍72😁27❤17🙊4🤣3🔥2
Showing the 12 most recent of 22 posts we hold for @jurist. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Stars beside a post are paid reactions — Telegram Stars, bought with money and spent on that post. They are a different unit from reactions and are never added to them, here or anywhere else on this page.
Forward network
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Mentions
Named by 2 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
Cite this entry
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 6 September 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Адвокат Шупиков | 115-ФЗ” (@jurist), 29,367 subscribers as measured 6 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/jurist.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.