Legal science and scientific activity of lawyers: to the question of correlation and functions

Relevance . The relevance of the topic is due to the existing contradictory scientific positions regarding such important concepts that are widely used in scientific works, federal and regional legislation, and are denoted by the terms “legal science” and “scientific activity of lawyers”. The current situation creates conditions not only for an endless scientific debate about the content of these concepts, for the disorientation of lawmakers and other law-making bodies when creating regulatory legal acts on these issues, but also contributes to the complication of the educational process for future lawyers, which will contribute to the self-reproduction of these problems in the future. The purpose of the study is to argue for the existence of significant differences in the content of the concepts denoted by the terms under analysis and to develop their definitions. Objectives : to substantiate the existence of contradictory scientific positions of various authors on the content of the concepts designated by the terms "legal science" and "scientific activity of lawyers"; to identify contradictory approaches of the legislator who fixes these terms in normative legal acts and their possible negative consequences; to formulate definitions of these concepts. Methodology . Historical-legal and formal-logical methods are used. System – structural and linguistic methods contributed to the development of the definition of these concepts. The method of expert assessments, methods of analysis and synthesis were also used. Results . Significant differences in doctrinal positions regarding the content of the concepts denoted by the terms “legal science” and “scientific activity of lawyers,” as well as the contradictory nature of their application in law‑ making activities, have been identified. Definitions of the aforementioned concepts have been formulated; their content will not only help to conclude the scientific discussion about the relationship between their content but will also contribute to clarity, consistency, and increased effectiveness of legislation. Conclusion . In order to complete the scientific discussion on the content of the concepts of "legal science" and "scientific activity of lawyers", as well as to create conditions for ensuring clarity and consistency of legislation that enshrines these terms, and to increase its effectiveness, it is recommended to normalize the definitions of the analyzed terms proposed in the article.