Page 33 - Report on the infringement of rights and guarantees of attorneys in Ukraine

BRINGING DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AGAINST ATTORNEYS

According to the UNBA, it is becoming more and more common for procedural opponents,
employees of judicial and law-enforcement agencies, to influence the legal position of an attorney,
file complaints about bringing disciplinary action against an attorney. Threats are made about the
preparation of a relevant appeal, although the only reason is that an attorney does not agree with
the position of a prosecutor or a court .
53

Immileila Abdullaieva-Martirosian
attorney
In February 2016, citizen R. Huliaiev coerced an attorney by interfering with her activities
through a series of unsubstantiated appeals to the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission
of the Bar of Kharkiv Region and the High Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar
of Ukraine. Coercion exerted by NSDCU employees on attorney K. Doroshenko was
documented, which manifested itself in the failure to respond to attorney’s requests and
constant forwarding of complaints to the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the
Bar .
54

Vitaliy Serdyuk, Ihor Fedorenko, Olha Prosyanyuk, Andriana Fozekosh
attorneys of former president Viktor Yanukovych
In December 2017, S.V. Shaputko, judge of the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv, unreasonably
filed a complaint with the Kyiv Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar against
the attorneys in connection with alleged deliberate failure to attend court hearings in the
case of investigating the events which took place on the Maidan in Kyiv on 18-20 February
2014.

Such practice of initiating disciplinary actions against an attorney devalues the
institute of attorney’s disciplinary liability, the primary focus of which must be
supervision of the observance of ethical standards by attorneys .
55
The ECHR emphasizes that the special status of lawyers gives them a central
position in the administration of justice as intermediaries between public and
courts (Shoepfer v. Switzerland case). “Equality of arms” and other
considerations of fairness are arguments in favour of a free and even forceful
exchange of argument between the parties (Nikula v. Finland case). Taking
into account special attention towards the observance of balance between
the parties to a trial, even a relatively light criminal sanction may already serve
to chill even appropriate and measured criticism (Nikula v. Finland and Thorheir
Thorgeirson v. Iceland cases), necessary for implementation of adversarial
principle in a fair trial. Therefore, criminal prosecution of a defence counsel,
especially while he/she is performing his/her duties as a client’s representative
in proceedings, makes it impossible to put into practice one of the basic values
of the international community – the rule of law.

33