Guarantees for the practice of law: subgroup discusses violations during searches

On May 6, a meeting was held of the subgroup on «Guarantees for the practice of law and the protection of advocates» of the Working Group on the Implementation of the Rule of Law Roadmap regarding the reform of the advocacy profession.

The discussion focused on violations of guarantees during procedural actions — primarily during searches of advocates’ offices and the seizure of media and materials that may contain attorney-client privilege.

The chairman of the Kyiv Regional Bar Association Petro Boiko noted that the majority of violations of guarantees occur during searches. He described such situations as gross interference in legal practice and as attempts to pressure an advocate or gain access to information covered by attorney-client privilege. He also noted that a Bar Council representative needs effective procedural tools to respond effectively.

In a separate session, participants discussed the time limits for notifying bar self-governing bodies of a search in accordance with Part 2 of Article 23 of the Law «On the advocacy and the practice of law» and the approach to determining the «urgency» of an investigative action: specifying «advance notice», the possibility of differentiating timeframes for ordinary and urgent cases, and the risks of abuse by citing urgency during searches of advocates’ offices.

The head of the Secretariat of the UNBA, BCU Vadym Krasnyk noted that the concept of «advance notice» should not be merely declarative but rather one that can be realistically implemented and monitored in practice. In this context, he supported an approach whereby timeframes and notification procedures could be differentiated depending on the nature of the investigative action, in order to minimize the risks of abuse of the «urgency» provision.

The chairman of the Committee for the protection of advocates’ professional rights of the Odesa Regional Bar Association Vadym Semenov emphasized that when discussing guarantees, it is important to establish not only the procedure for the council representative’s participation but also the procedural consequences of violating those guarantees. He also highlighted the existence of related practical issues that should be coordinated with other sets of amendments within the criminal process.

The discussion focused not only on the procedure for the participation of a bar association representative but also on the procedural consequences of violating guarantees, including through the lens of assessing the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of attorney-client privilege. The chairman of the UNBA’s legislative initiatives Committee on legal practice Oleksiy Yushchenko noted that the set of guarantees traditionally requires finding compromises.

The issue of attorney inquiries was also raised — specifically, cases where responses limit or refuse to provide information under the pretext of protecting personal data.

Ideas regarding additional safeguards in criminal proceedings were also raised.

The subgroup’s work continues. Participants agreed to continue collecting and reviewing proposals to strengthen guarantees for the practice of law, particularly regarding searches, access to materials that may contain attorney-client privilege, the participation of representatives of bar self-governing bodies, and the procedural consequences of violating these guarantees.