Search of an advocate's office after client's acquittal: criminal complaint filed

In Kyiv, law enforcement officers conducted a search of the home of an advocate who had defended a client acquitted by the court and seized materials from the advocate’s case file. The proceedings were initiated shortly after the acquittal, even though the document they were searching for was already included in the court case file.

The Committee for the protection of advocates’ rights and guarantees of legal practice of the UNBA filed a complaint with the State Bureau of Investigations alleging criminal offenses. The Committee views the actions of prosecutors and police officials as constituting obstruction of the advocate’s work and abuse of official authority.

The search was conducted on September 22, 2026, at the advocate’s residence as part of proceedings under Part 2 of Article 384 (Misleading a court or other authorized body) of the Criminal Code. A representative of the UNBA Committee Taras Gudzera participated in the investigative action and documented violations of guarantees for the practice of law.

The proceedings concern an expert opinion that the advocate submitted to the court while defending his client. During the court hearing, the expert confirmed that he had personally prepared and signed the document, and also reported that he had been pressured to alter his conclusions in favor of the prosecution. In August 2025, the court acquitted the advocate’s client, and 20 days later, information about a possible criminal offense was entered into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations.

The Committee noted that, in fact, the only action by the advocate that the prosecution linked to the criminal proceedings was obtaining and submitting evidence to the court in the client’s interest. The defense’s right to gather evidence including requesting and obtaining expert opinions is provided for in Part 3 of Article 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

It is noteworthy that the search was conducted more than a year after the investigation began and on the eve of the hearing of an appeal against the acquittal. Moreover, a copy of the expert opinion that law enforcement officials intended to find was already included in the court case file.

Instead, during the search, a cell phone and documents from the advocate’s file were seized. Thanks to the diligent efforts of Committee members, the phon which contained case files and correspondence with clients was examined that same day in the presence of a Committee representative and returned to the advocate. At the same time, the advocate’s official correspondence remains seized, even though, according to the Committee, it was not included in the list of items authorized for seizure by the investigating judge’s order and constitutes attorney-client privilege.

In addition, the advocate was served with a subpoena to appear for questioning as a witness in the same proceedings. The Committee noted that an advocate cannot be questioned as a witness regarding information that came to his or her knowledge while providing legal assistance. However, the search warrant refers to him as a person involved in a criminal offense.

«The UNBA Committee regards such actions as a gross violation of the guarantees of the legal profession and an impermissible interference in the provision of legal assistance, which requires a proper legal assessment and response from the competent authorities», - the statement reads.

The Committee is asking the State Bureau of Investigation to enter information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations regarding the obstruction of a defense attorney’s lawful activities by public officials and the abuse of authority by law enforcement officers — under Part 2 of Article 397 and Part 1 of Article 365 of the Criminal Code. The report alleging criminal offenses was prepared by Committee member and advocate Anastasia Burkovska.

In addition, the Committee intends to address other competent authorities regarding the actions of the individuals who initiated the search warrant application and the investigating judge who authorized it.