All attempts to make the bar weak and dependent are doomed to failure

After publication of my interview in the Zakon i Biznes (Law and Business) Newspaper, my opponents in social networks, without giving any counterarguments, attacked me supported by the fact that they cannot understand what my conclusions are based on. Well, let’s talk about the argumentation and justification of my position; I will do my best to be concise.

Performing a substantive analysis of publications of the Ukrainian bar pseudoreforming ‘ideologists’, in particular, the publications of Denys Buhai and Andrii Stelmashchuk in media, one can notice that their position on this issue has been determined by article written by Andrii Vyshnevskyi, which is extremely shared in facebook by Inna Rafalska, emphasizing that she likes this article not only because of its content, but also because of the form of presentation.

But what we are actually offered? Let’s consider point by point:

1. The assertion that the Ukrainian bar community is not capable of solving its own problems, including organizational ones, is presented as self-evident. They say that there is an obvious conflict in the Ukrainian legal environment, and we are forced to believe that without state intervention the bar community cannot independently solve its own problems.

2. The dubious assertion about the ineffectiveness of the current model of the bar self-government with its hierarchy line is presented as undisputed; it is also argued that nowadays all re-elected throughout Ukraine regional and national leaders of the bar self-government bodies do not express the interests of the majority of the bar community, accordingly, they cannot fully and productively carry out their functions in organizing the activities of the national bar system. Consequently, it is necessary, according to them, to change the rules of the game by revising the entire hierarchy line of the bar self-government by immediate elections according to the new model of elections right after the adoption of a new amended specialized Law.

3. And, finally, the most questionable, unjustified and, from my point of view, completely absurd statement. As if the Ukrainian bar seems to be systematically penetrated by corruption and is a party to massive corruption schemes. In addition, we are strenuously forced to think that there are obvious signs of mass unprofessionalism in the bar, and that, therefore, all advocates without exception should undergo re-qualification for compliance with the advocate’s status to confirm the right to exercise professional activities.

ARGUMENTS I PRESENT IN MY ARTICLES AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS, VIGOROUSLY OPPOSING ALL THREE AFOREMENTIONED POSITIONS AND INDICATING THEIR APPARENT ABSURDITY:

1. According to the established European vision of the bar as an effective human rights institution, the bar shall be strong and powerful. And here it is indeed a self-evident statement that strong bar is impossible without its genuine independence and self-government, therefore, it is a priori understandable that any state interference with the activities of our self-governing institute is absolutely inadmissible in any form. Any possible attempts to make the bar weak, and the advocates dependent, are considered criminal since they are a crime directed against the legal system of our state and democracy, and therefore, such actions can be initiated by, I’ll put it straight, criminals only, who are enemies of not only the bar community, but of all Ukrainian people, who chose a course aimed at the establishment of a law-governed state. And it is impossible without the full independence and self-government of such a human rights institution as the bar, which, I will repeat myself, is an integral part of any law-governed state.

2. During almost five years of its existence the current model of the bar self-government, which operates under the effective specialized law, has proven to be effective. Recently elected in almost all regions of Ukraine and at the national level, its governing bodies consist of worthy people. These people were elected democratically, on legal grounds, and their election was based on the will of our entire bar community, thus, the attempts to crush and invalidate this will are shameful, or, putting it crudely, criminal, since they are aimed at collapse of the Ukrainian bar system. Therefore, the entire bar community should be consolidated as much as possible and give them a decisive rebuff.

3. The absurd assertion that Ukrainian advocates are massively unprofessional and are an integral part of corruption schemes doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. This over- patronizing neglect of the bar institute can only be shown by people who are far from the activities of the Ukrainian bar, who are amateurs in legal profession and have mercantile interests, namely, to try to take leading and leadership positions in the Ukrainian bar on the wave of this pseudo-reformation. However, this will never happen to them, because this will not be allowed by the bar community, which, as the position of regional bar communities demonstrates, is ready to resist and will not allow the collapse of the national bar.

The Ukrainian bar has long legal traditions, and Ukrainian advocates have a high professional level, which is confirmed by specific cases, including those presented in the European Court of Human Rights, in the world legal practice and in the human rights activities. Although there have been certain cases, it is necessary to take into account the realities of functioning of the rule of law. Such cases are not typical and do not give any right to assess the activities of national bar and influence the vector of its development. Period!

In conclusion, I have one rhetorical question. Is it possible that my opponents, who are so disrespectful to their colleagues from the entire national bar community, claim that it is not able to solve its own problems independently and call on the state to the uncontrolled and unacceptable interference with the organizational activities of an independent, self-governing human rights institution; do they hope and count on advocates’ commitment and support of their defective ideas and intentions? And this is after their effective attempts to legislatively conduct an unlawful re-qualification of all Ukrainian advocates, who have legally received their status of an advocate. One thought steals into my mind – which in our realities has the right to exist – that by such re-qualification all ‘unwanted’ advocates would be removed, while all others would serve to pump out money, gradually turning into ‘milch-cows’. IT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE, UKRAINIAN ADVOCATES, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN ALLOW!

Автор публікації: Oleksii Fazekosh

Oleksii Fazekosh

Advocate, Chairman of the Bar Council of Zakarpattia Region