Disciplinary responsibility of advocates: how the system works and why experience is important for experts

Unlike many professions, the Ukrainian advocacy has a developed system of self-regulation, particularly in matters of disciplinary responsibility. That is why the experience gained since 2012 can be useful for reforming forensic activities.

This was discussed during the round table «Standards of professional conduct for advocates and forensic experts: problematic issues and ways to resolve them», organized and conducted by the Ministry of Justice, the National Scientific Center «Institute of Forensic Expertise named after Prof. M. S. Bokarius», and the Ukrainian National Bar Association.

Within the thematic area «Problems of regulatory and legal regulation of forensic and advocacy activities; disciplinary responsibility of advocates and experts», Andriy Misiats, the acting Head of the High Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar, who spoke about the key features of the model of disciplinary responsibility of advocates, recent changes in the procedure and principles followed by the bar self-government to ensure fairness and trust in the profession.

According to him, the disciplinary practice of the Bar already has a solid regulatory framework and many years of experience based on ethical standards. In this context, he emphasized the importance of combining legislative requirements with moral and ethical norms, as enshrined in the Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers.

Recently, the Bar Council of Ukraine has introduced changes to the procedure for considering disciplinary cases. It has become more transparent and convenient for participants. In particular, advocates and complainants have been given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with case materials through cloud storage, participate in meetings online, and commissions have introduced a mixed format for meetings. A. Misiats noted that this has increased the effectiveness of the HQDCB as a quasi-judicial body.

He recalled that an advocate can only be held accountable after all stages of the procedure have been followed: filing a complaint, reviewing it, opening or refusing to open disciplinary proceedings, considering the case on its merits, and adopting a decision. The current law provides for only three types of disciplinary sanctions: warning, suspension of the right to practice law for a period of one month to one year, and deprivation of the right with exclusion from the Unified Register of Advocates of Ukraine. The law does not provide for other types of punishment, such as fines or community service.

Any decision of the regional QDCB may be appealed to the HQDCB or to a court. In doing so, the HQDCB has the right not only to overturn or uphold decisions, but also to amend them. This practice has been confirmed by court decisions, including cases heard by the Supreme Court.

Separately, the head of the High Disciplinary Bar Commission drew attention to the typical problem of abuse of disciplinary complaints by procedural opponents. According to him, such attempts are used to put pressure on an advocate or to remove him or her from a case. The Commission carefully examines such complaints and does not allow them to be used as a tool of unfair competition.

In conclusion, A. Misiats emphasized that disciplinary responsibility must be not only lawful but also fair, and that the experience of the advocacy in building such a system could serve as an example for improving professional regulation in the judicial and expert spheres.