Національна Асоціація Адвокатів УкраЇни - Protecting advocates – protecting justice: addressing concerns about the new law

Two important events are expected to take place in Ukraine soon that will strengthen the protection of advocates. The first is Ukraine's accession to the first international Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer, adopted in March 2025 (18 countries have already signed the document). The second is the hope that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will sign the law passed by the Verkhovna Rada prohibiting the identification of advocates with their clients. This law, supported by a constitutional majority of deputies (262 votes in the second reading), introduces administrative liability for dangerous identification and provides practical tools for protecting advocates.

However, a public debate has unfolded around the law. Some civil society activists and journalists are calling on the president to veto the document, claiming that it is a “blow to freedom of speech” and a threat to democratic values. On the other hand, the majority of the legal community and advocates insist that such a law is urgently needed to address the real problem of violence and pressure on defence advocates because of their professional activities. The situation has reached the point where advocates are effectively being accused of their clients' crimes, which has dangerous consequences for society as a whole.

I offer my view on all the main concerns about the law prohibiting the identification of advocates with their clients. We will examine the key myths, explain the essence of the phenomenon and the international context, and show why protecting advocates strengthens rather than weakens democracy.

What the identification of advocates with their client and why is it dangerous?

Identification of an advocate with a client is a situation where an advocate begins to be perceived as an accomplice to the crimes of his client solely because of the fact that he provides legal services.

At the everyday level, an example of this is the opinion that “if an advocate defends a murder suspect, then he is probably not much better than the murderer himself.” In the case of public disclosure, this takes on even more toxic forms: in the media or social networks, alongside the advocate's name, his contact details, addresses, and labels such as “traitor advocate” may be published, thus inciting hatred towards him.

It gets worse: the advocate begins to receive open threats, his car is set on fire, his family is attacked, and he is beaten or even killed simply for agreeing to defend an unpopular client. This is identification in the full sense of the word – when an advocate is subjected to negative attitudes and violence because of his work for a client. There have already been such cases in Ukraine, and their number is growing every year.

It is worth emphasising that it is precisely the negative consequences that are the defining feature of dangerous identification. Everyone has the right to have any opinion about the morality of a particular advocate. But when this opinion enters the public sphere with calls for reprisals or leads to real threats and attacks, the problem ceases to be a matter of personal assessment and becomes socially dangerous.

Why is this dangerous? If an advocate, in performing his professional duties, constantly risks becoming a target of aggression, he will not be able to effectively protect his client's rights. Fearing for their life or reputation, advocates will either imitate their work or refuse to take on high-profile cases altogether. This harms not only the specific defendant but also society as a whole, as it undermines the very foundation of the rule of law.

It is not without reason that advocates are compared to doctors: just as a doctor provides assistance to any injured person (even if they are a criminal), so an advocate ensures everyone's right to defence, guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine. If the defender is under attack, then each of us’s rights are threatened. A well-protected advocate means that citizens' rights are reliably protected, just as a protected journalist is not afraid to expose sensitive issues, and a protected doctor provides quality treatment.

Unfortunately, there has been a lack of understanding of this simple truth in Ukraine. The principle of “advocate ≠ his client” is often not accepted by ordinary citizens, journalists, or some activists. For example, by defending a person accused of treason, an advocate risks being branded a “traitor” himself.

A telling case: in 2016, a Ukrainian advocate was killed in Ukraine. According to Amnesty International, this happened after a series of threats and intimidation related to his defence of a suspect in a treason case.

There are dozens of other examples: advocates have been threatened, their cars burned, and groups of radical “activists” have disrupted court hearings and attacked advocates Oleh Povaliaiev and Oleksii Nesvitailo right in the courtroom. According to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), such attacks on Ukrainian advocates are systematic. And that's not counting the hundreds of cases where advocates receive threats online and offline – many don't even file complaints because there have been no effective protection mechanisms to date.

The trend is also alarming: since the start of the full-scale war, the number of recorded cases of advocates being identified with their clients has been steadily increasing. While 13 such cases were documented in 2022, there were already 21 in 2023, 28 in 2024, and 32 in the first half of 2025 alone. This is just the tip of the iceberg, as many incidents simply do not make it into the official statistics.

At the same time, there has been virtually no legal liability for such persecution: since 2006, only two convictions under the article on interference in the activities of a defence advocate have been found in the Unified Register of Court Decisions (in 2015 and 2016), while dozens of cases simply do not reach court each year. In other words, in practice, advocates are no better protected than journalists, who are also often victims of attacks for their work.

The new law on the protection of advocates is aimed precisely at these dangerous consequences. It does not introduce anything fundamentally new – the ethical and legal prohibition on identifying an advocate with a client already existed in Ukraine. The law merely takes the next step: it establishes a penalty in the form of an administrative fine (3,400–5,100 UAH, or about $100) for those whose public actions have led to real threats or harm to an advocate.

The Criminal Code is also clarified: an attack or violence against an advocate due to their professional activities will be considered an aggravating circumstance, but the relevant article (Article 397 of the Criminal Code) existed before. In other words, the law specifies and strengthens existing norms to make the protection of advocates more real.

Myth 1: “The law undermines freedom of speech” – where is the line between criticism and threats?

The most vocal accusation from opponents is that this law allegedly poses a threat to freedom of speech and independent journalism. They say that now the media or activists will not even be able to mention who a particular advocate is defending for fear of punishment. Some publications have called the initiative a “threat to freedom of speech” and an “attack on democracy.”

In reality, this is a myth based on a misrepresentation of the law's content.

Firstly, there is no ban on reporting who an advocate represents, nor are there any plans to introduce one. No one will fine a journalist for saying, “Advocate Petrenko is the defence advocate for oligarch N.” Identification is something else entirely. Only the deliberate equating of an advocate with their client can be punished if it leads to negative consequences.

In other words, the problem is not the mention itself, but the addition of labels such as “murderer advocate” or “traitor advocate,” which incite the crowd to violence. The bill explicitly requires the advocate to prove that such statements or publications have actually affected his safety, independence or family. Without this, there will be no penalty.

Therefore, critical articles, investigations, and analytics are all protected by freedom of speech, as before. Only an extremely narrow segment falls under liability: calls for violence, threats, or defamatory identification that has caused harm.

Incidentally, freedom of expression is not absolute in the European Convention on Human Rights either: it may be restricted in order to protect the reputation or safety of others (Article 10 of the ECHR). In this case, we are talking specifically about protecting the lives and professional rights of advocates – a legitimate goal recognised throughout the democratic world.

Secondly, the procedure for imposing a fine is structured with several levels of verification to avoid any abuse or pressure on the media. An advocate who believes that he has been identified with a client in a dangerous way cannot simply “ban the article” or collect money from the journalist. First, they must apply to the regional Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar (composed of 10 members), which will hold a separate meeting and assess whether there were any negative consequences. Next, if the commission agrees, the advocate goes to court, where he must prove a causal link between the publication and, say, threats against him. Only if the court confirms the fact of identification and its harmful consequences will the offender face a fine of several thousand hryvnias. This is about $100 – a purely symbolic amount, which rather indicates a violation of ethical boundaries. And this money still has to be collected after winning the court case.

In other words, the law is written in such a way as to hold only obvious violators accountable, those whose rhetoric has caused real harm. For honest journalists, bloggers, or activists who criticise but do not resort to threats and personal insults, practically nothing changes – they can still face a civil lawsuit for defamation if they spread blatant lies.

Thirdly, the prohibition on identifying an advocate with their client is not a Ukrainian “know-how” that allegedly contradicts European norms, as critics claim. On the contrary, this approach is fully in line with European practice. The latest Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer explicitly provides that “lawyers shall not suffer adverse consequences as a result of being identified with their clients.” (Article 6.5). It is important that European experts have drafted this provision with a view to balancing it with freedom of speech – it is necessary to prove a real link between the statements and the damage, as noted by one of the drafters of the Convention, British barrister Jeremy McBride.

Moreover, the Convention clearly warns that evaluative judgments and criticism are not considered identification in themselves. In other words, European standards already contain the same safeguards as the Ukrainian draft law. It is doubtful that 18 EU countries and the Council of Europe have unanimously decided to "violate freedom of speech" — rather, it is a matter of protecting the basic principles of justice. Ukraine, seeking to join the EU, is obliged to implement such approaches.

It is also worth noting that reputable media outlets have always adhered to basic standards and have not branded advocates as criminals without a court ruling. No serious publication would write, for example, that “the advocate of oligarch X is guilty of financial fraud on a par with his client” if there is no verdict against the advocate himself. Therefore, the new law will by no means force honest journalists to “keep quiet” – it only restricts the right of the media to incite hostility and make threats, which, in the end, responsible media should not be doing anyway.

In practice, Ukrainian journalism has already faced similar restrictions in other areas – for example, there are laws against defamation, incitement to violence, disclosure of investigation secrets, etc. And this is not considered an attack on the free press, but rather a civilised norm.

Therefore, the claim that this is a “blow to freedom of speech” does not stand up to criticism. The law is narrowly aimed at protecting advocates from extreme forms of pressure and does not restrict the honest work of journalists. Moreover, its provisions are harmonised with European standards of freedom of expression, which recognise the possibility of liability for incitement to violence or serious defamation.

Myth 2: “The protection of advocates is unnecessary/the problem is fictitious”

Another argument put forward by critics is that the risks to advocates are exaggerated, that there are more important problems in Ukraine, and that identification is a rare occurrence that does not require a separate law. Some even argue that advocates themselves are to blame – they do not “communicate” enough, and should have conducted a PR campaign instead of pushing for changes to the Code.

It got to the point where, at a special discussion conference organised with the support of Western donors, most of the speakers sided with the critics, and the advocates themselves were effectively denied a voice, making them the subject of discussion. So it is important to dot the i's and cross the t's: the problem of violence against advocates is real and serious, and it is unacceptable to continue to ignore it.

Fact 1: Advocates are being killed, beaten, and intimidated not only in “third countries” but also in Ukraine, and this is happening more and more often. We have already mentioned several striking examples. We would like to add that, according to information from the Ukrainian National Bar Association, in 2023 alone, 46 criminal proceedings were officially registered for interference in the activities of defence advocates (for comparison, there were 15 in 2022 and 46 in 2024). And this is only what came to the attention of law enforcement agencies. At the same time, almost no one has been punished – pressure on advocates remains de facto unpunished. This is a systemic failure of the rule of law: people who defend the constitutional rights of citizens find themselves unprotected.

Fact 2: The global context shows that the problem is not imaginary. According to a survey by the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), approximately 57% of lawyers in Europe have faced threats or aggression in the last few years, and more than a third have considered leaving the profession because of this. In other words, even in developed democracies, violence against advocates is not an exception but, unfortunately, a common occurrence. In response to these alarming trends, the Council of Europe has prepared a new convention for their protection. Hundreds of cases of attacks or persecution of lawyers because of their clients have been recorded in various countries. For example:

This list could go on and on. The point is that identifying an advocate with their client is a global problem, and Ukraine, unfortunately, is no exception. On the contrary, in our current circumstances – war, heightened sensitivity to the issue of collaboration – advocates who undertake to defend, for example, those accused of treason or collaboration with the enemy, easily become targets for radical elements.

There has been a wave of attacks on advocates handling military cases (involving crimes committed in military registration and enlistment offices) – in the first half of 2023 alone, a third of all violations of advocates' rights were related to such cases. There have been cases where law enforcement officers themselves have put pressure on advocates: they have raided their homes or offices in connection with their clients' cases, trying to gain access to confidential defence files. All this sets a very dangerous precedent: advocates are perceived as “enemies” simply for doing their job. This should not be the case in a state governed by the rule of law.

Fact 3: Existing laws have not previously provided an adequate response to this problem. The criminal offence of assaulting an advocate (Article 397) has been in place for a long time, but, as we have seen, it is largely ineffective. The ethical standards of the legal profession also condemn such behaviour, but this is more of a moral appeal than a mechanism of protection. Therefore, special measures are needed to ensure that offenders finally feel accountable.

The introduction of an administrative fine is just such a measure. It is preventive in nature: public figures and opinion leaders will think twice before calling someone's advocate an “accomplice to a crime,” knowing that they can be held accountable for doing so. In other words, the law introduces a culture of responsibility for one's words – something we often lack.

As Oleksander Oliinyk, a representative of the Ministry of Justice, rightly pointed out, there is still a practice in Ukraine where bloggers or activists feel they can say anything they want, thinking, “I'll say what I want, and nothing will happen to me.” Such permissiveness of speech, regardless of the consequences, sooner or later destroys the rule of law. Now is the time to learn to assess the possible consequences of your words, especially if you are an opinion leader or a well-known media outlet.

Therefore, it is wrong and dangerous to downplay the problem. The protection of advocates is not a whim of a narrow group, but an urgent need for the entire justice system. The Ukrainian justice system is already going through difficult times, and if the trend of harassing advocates is not stopped, tomorrow every citizen may find themselves without qualified protection when their rights are violated.

Another misconception is that the law only benefits advocates themselves, even those who are involved in blatantly “dirty” cases, defending corrupt officials, traitors, etc. The argument is that society has the right to know who these “heroes” are, but they are being protected by immunity. In reality, the law is not about indulgences for dishonest advocates, but about protecting everyone's right to a fair trial. Let's explain in more detail.

First, if an advocate himself violates the law, engages in corruption, misleads the court, or otherwise crosses the line, no one will protect him from liability. Neither the current legislation nor the new amendments grant advocates any immunity from punishment for their own crimes or disciplinary offences. Both journalists and the public are fully entitled to criticise an advocate if he or she has committed an offence or unethical act – the law on identification does not prohibit this in any way.

The point is simply that it is not permissible to unjustifiably brand an advocate a criminal simply because they are diligently performing their duty to defend someone else.

Secondly, the protection concerns not so much the personalities of advocates as the interests of their clients and society as a whole. Let's examine the paradox: when it comes to, say, a detained journalist or activist, the human rights community immediately demands that they be provided with an advocate and that no pressure be exerted on the defence. This is correct. But if tomorrow this advocate is harassed for defending the “wrong” client, won't the same activist or journalist suffer? The rights of the defendant are directly violated if his defender is intimidated or removed from the case due to threats.

Therefore, by supporting the tools for the protection of advocates, we support the rights of everyone who may be affected by the justice system. Today it is a conditional oligarch or politician, and tomorrow it could be anyone who is unjustly accused or confronted with the repressive machine.

Thirdly, there is a misconception that advocates are “bad” because they free criminals from punishment, “ruin cases,” and so on. Yes, in popular culture, there is a stereotype of a clever advocate who, for money, gets a scoundrel out of prison on the basis of formal loopholes.

But the reality of justice is more complex. The main mission of an advocate is not to “get the guilty off the hook,” but to ensure that the innocent are not convicted or given a harsher punishment than they deserve. An advocate ensures that the investigation and prosecution act within the law, do not fabricate evidence, and do not exceed their powers. Unfortunately, there are cases of abuse and mistakes.

In Ukraine, after the Revolution of Dignity, an alarming trend has emerged: law enforcement agencies and courts are increasingly violating the presumption of innocence by publicly declaring a person guilty even before the court's verdict. Show searches with photos of seized money posted on Telegram channels, as well as high-profile briefings on “exposing traitors” before the investigation is complete — all this has become the norm. In such an atmosphere, the role of the advocate as the voice of common sense and legality is incredibly important. He alone reminds us: “Wait for the court's decision, provide evidence, follow the procedure.” And if his voice is silenced, the system will slide back into medieval mob justice.

History provides vivid examples of why even the worst criminals have the right to defence. At the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II, lawyers represented Nazi leaders such as Göring, Ribbentrop, and others. It would seem, why give a voice to lawyers for obvious war criminals? However, the judges insisted: so that the verdicts would be impeccably fair and no one would doubt that the convicted were not “martyrs” but the real culprits. The lawyers did their job, and some of the defendants even had their death sentences commuted to imprisonment – the world saw that justice had been done fairly, without lynching.

Similarly, an Israeli court provided lawyers for Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann in 1961 because it understood the importance of a trial that was as open and fair as possible. These examples are not about “pity” for criminals, but about a principle: there can be no fair trial without the right to defence.

Therefore, the law prohibiting identification does not “cover up for bad people,” but protects the mechanism that distinguishes us from vigilante justice and dictatorship. It protects the institution of the legal profession, without which justice becomes a farce. Democracy is measured precisely by the extent to which the state guarantees the rights of even unpopular, even odious figures — and advocates are key figures in this process, however painful it may sometimes be for society to admit.

The law on the protection of Ukrainian advocates from harassment is fully in line with European standards and trends. Moreover, it can be called the fulfilment of international obligations that Ukraine will soon formally assume by signing the aforementioned Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer.

This Convention is the world's first international treaty aimed exclusively at guaranteeing the safety and independence of lawyers. It did not appear out of nowhere: the preamble directly mentions “the increase in reports of attacks, threats and obstruction” of the work of lawyers in Europe and around the world. Ukrainian experts participated in its development, so our context was taken into account. On 13 May 2025, the document was opened for signature in Luxembourg, and on the same day it was signed by 18 states, including all key EU countries (France, Italy, Sweden, Poland, Great Britain, etc.). Ukraine has also announced its intention to join, and work is already underway on translation and preparation for ratification.

What does the Convention provide for? In short, it guarantees lawyers the right to perform their duties without fear of physical attacks, intimidation, interference, or persecution. It sets out clear guarantees: the right of lawyers to freedom of expression, confidentiality of communication with clients, access to clients, and attorney-client privilege – all of which are fundamental to an independent legal profession.

And, as already mentioned, the Convention specifically warns against identifying lawyers with their clients as a dangerous practice. This provision has been harmonised with existing Council of Europe human rights documents so that the protection of lawyers does not conflict with freedom of expression. Europeans spent about ten years agreeing on the text, carefully weighing every word. The result is a balanced approach that takes into account both the rights of journalists and the rights of lawyers.

It is worth mentioning the position of representatives of the European Bar, voiced during an international conference in Kyiv. Marie-Aimee Peyron, Vice-President of the French National Bar Council, emphasised: “A lawyer can never be identified with a client,” because everyone, even the worst, has an equal right to justice.

She was supported by Frédéric Teper, a member of the French Bar Council, who noted that without this condition, a lawyer cannot guarantee the quality of legal assistance. In other words, if a lawyer is afraid of being tainted by their client's misdeeds, they cannot work effectively – and justice will suffer as a result.

Former President of the European Association of Lawyers (AEA-EAL) Maria Ślązak (Poland) cited an interesting fact: in Britain and Canada, lawyers have a direct obligation to defend even very unpopular clients – refusal is possible only in exceptional cases. This is done precisely for the benefit of citizens: if lawyers start choosing only “likeable” clients, hundreds of people may be left without defence.

“Defence does not mean agreeing with the client's behaviour or actions; defence is a guarantee of a fair trial,” Ms. Ślązak emphasised. In the context of Ukraine, she noted that our advocates are currently facing particularly difficult challenges, in particular, defending those accused of collaboration or even enemy soldiers. And that is why such protection of advocates by law is extremely necessary.

So, instead of distancing itself from Europe, as opponents fear, Ukraine is moving closer to European standards by implementing this law. We are demonstrating that we are adopting best practices and sharing the values of the rule of law. In EU countries, lawyers are respected figures, and an attack on a lawyer is perceived as an attack on justice and democratic institutions. We should strive for this too.

Incidentally, a direct ban on identifying lawyers already exists in some European legislations. For example, in Poland, there is a rule that public statements equating a lawyer with their client may be considered a violation of the law (although this is regulated by ethics and civil law). So Ukraine's move is by no means unique; our neighbours are moving in the same direction.

To sum up: advocates are a key link in the justice system, as essential to democracy as independent courts, a free press, or an honest police force. When we protect advocates, we protect every citizen's right to a fair trial. Everyone benefits from a strong legal profession:

Opponents of the law sometimes argue that in times of war, we must fight collaborators and traitors, rather than “inventing privileges” for advocates. But this war is precisely about ensuring that Ukraine remains a democratic state governed by the rule of law, rather than becoming a mirror image of its enemy. The rule of law is our shield against sliding into authoritarianism. If we allow extrajudicial punishment of even one advocate (or journalist, or judge – it doesn't matter), will we be any better than the regime we are fighting against? It is not for nothing that Europe values adherence to procedure so highly, even in the most emotional situations. This is not weakness or bureaucracy – it is the power of common sense, which has gone through numerous wars and cataclysms and proven itself right.

A protected advocate is a direct fulfillment of the requirements of the Constitution. The presumption of innocence, the right to defence, the right to a fair trial – all these principles, enshrined in Article 62 of the Basic Law, come to life only when an advocate can freely do his job. If he is intimidated, constitutional guarantees will remain beautiful words on paper.

All the arguments considered point to one thing: Ukraine needs a law prohibiting the identification of advocates with their clients.

It does not pose any threat to freedom of speech – instead, it eliminates a legal loophole that allowed defenders to be harassed with impunity. It does not contradict European norms – on the contrary, it introduces a national mechanism in line with the latest European Convention, which aims to raise the standards of democratic justice. It does not “corrupt” advocates or harm society – on the contrary, it helps to ensure that every citizen has access to a courageous and independent advocate without fear of reprisals.

President Zelenskyy should sign this law, thereby demonstrating his commitment to the principle of the rule of law not in words but in deeds. This will send a positive signal to the entire legal community, both in Ukraine and beyond. Respect for advocates means respect for fair trials, and without fair trials there can be no true democracy, no successful reforms, and no public trust in the state.

This law also carries an important lesson for journalists and opinion leaders. It reminds us of our responsibility: words have weight, especially when they can cause real harm to someone. A free press is not about permissiveness, but above all about responsibility to society. Criticism is the oxygen of democracy, but calls for violence are poison. By rejecting the latter, we will only improve the information climate and make it more civilised.

Finally, it should be noted that the protection of advocates is not about privileges, but about the safety of each of us. Imagine that tomorrow you need an advocate, no matter what the reason. You will want this person to be able to defend you boldly and professionally. You would not want them to refuse to support you out of fear for their own life or reputation. Therefore, by supporting the law on the protection of advocates today, we are investing in our own safety and justice for tomorrow. And this is a sign of the maturity of a nation that has chosen the path of law rather than vigilante justice.

Serhii Liamets

journalist, blogger

	10:21 Mon 15.09.25
Protecting advocates – protecting justice: addressing concerns about the new law
Home quote “The protection of advocates is not about privileges, but about the safety of each of us”, - journalist S. Liamets Two important events are expected to take place in Ukraine soon that will strengthen the protection of advocates. The first is Ukraine's accession to the first international Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer, adopted in March 2025 (18 countries have already signed the document). The second is the hope that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will sign the law passed by the Verkhovna Rada prohibiting the identification of advocates with their clients. This law, supported by a constitutional majority of deputies (262 votes in the second reading), introduces administrative liability for dangerous identification and provides practical tools for protecting advocates. However, a public debate has unfolded around the law. Some civil society activists and journalists are calling on the president to veto the document, claiming that it is a “blow to freedom of speech” and a threat to democratic values. On the other hand, the majority of the legal community and advocates insist that such a law is urgently needed to address the real problem of violence and pressure on defence advocates because of their professional activities. The situation has reached the point where advocates are effectively being accused of their clients' crimes, which has dangerous consequences for society as a whole. I offer my view on all the main concerns about the law prohibiting the identification of advocates with their clients. We will examine the key myths, explain the essence of the phenomenon and the international context, and show why protecting advocates strengthens rather than weakens democracy. What the identification of advocates with their client and why is it dangerous? Identification of an advocate with a client is a situation where an advocate begins to be perceived as an accomplice to the crimes of his client solely because of the fact that he provides legal services. At the everyday level, an example of this is the opinion that “if an advocate defends a murder suspect, then he is probably not much better than the murderer himself.” In the case of public disclosure, this takes on even more toxic forms: in the media or social networks, alongside the advocate's name, his contact details, addresses, and labels such as “traitor advocate” may be published, thus inciting hatred towards him. It gets worse: the advocate begins to receive open threats, his car is set on fire, his family is attacked, and he is beaten or even killed simply for agreeing to defend an unpopular client. This is identification in the full sense of the word – when an advocate is subjected to negative attitudes and violence because of his work for a client. There have already been such cases in Ukraine, and their number is growing every year. It is worth emphasising that it is precisely the negative consequences that are the defining feature of dangerous identification. Everyone has the right to have any opinion about the morality of a particular advocate. But when this opinion enters the public sphere with calls for reprisals or leads to real threats and attacks, the problem ceases to be a matter of personal assessment and becomes socially dangerous. Why is this dangerous? If an advocate, in performing his professional duties, constantly risks becoming a target of aggression, he will not be able to effectively protect his client's rights. Fearing for their life or reputation, advocates will either imitate their work or refuse to take on high-profile cases altogether. This harms not only the specific defendant but also society as a whole, as it undermines the very foundation of the rule of law. It is not without reason that advocates are compared to doctors: just as a doctor provides assistance to any injured person (even if they are a criminal), so an advocate ensures everyone's right to defence, guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine. If the defender is under attack, then each of us’s rights are threatened. A well-protected advocate means that citizens' rights are reliably protected, just as a protected journalist is not afraid to expose sensitive issues, and a protected doctor provides quality treatment. Unfortunately, there has been a lack of understanding of this simple truth in Ukraine. The principle of “advocate ≠ his client” is often not accepted by ordinary citizens, journalists, or some activists. For example, by defending a person accused of treason, an advocate risks being branded a “traitor” himself. A telling case: in 2016, a Ukrainian advocate was killed in Ukraine. According to Amnesty International, this happened after a series of threats and intimidation related to his defence of a suspect in a treason case. There are dozens of other examples: advocates have been threatened, their cars burned, and groups of radical “activists” have disrupted court hearings and attacked advocates Oleh Povaliaiev and Oleksii Nesvitailo right in the courtroom. According to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), such attacks on Ukrainian advocates are systematic. And that's not counting the hundreds of cases where advocates receive threats online and offline – many don't even file complaints because there have been no effective protection mechanisms to date. The trend is also alarming: since the start of the full-scale war, the number of recorded cases of advocates being identified with their clients has been steadily increasing. While 13 such cases were documented in 2022, there were already 21 in 2023, 28 in 2024, and 32 in the first half of 2025 alone. This is just the tip of the iceberg, as many incidents simply do not make it into the official statistics. At the same time, there has been virtually no legal liability for such persecution: since 2006, only two convictions under the article on interference in the activities of a defence advocate have been found in the Unified Register of Court Decisions (in 2015 and 2016), while dozens of cases simply do not reach court each year. In other words, in practice, advocates are no better protected than journalists, who are also often victims of attacks for their work. The new law on the protection of advocates is aimed precisely at these dangerous consequences. It does not introduce anything fundamentally new – the ethical and legal prohibition on identifying an advocate with a client already existed in Ukraine. The law merely takes the next step: it establishes a penalty in the form of an administrative fine (3,400–5,100 UAH, or about $100) for those whose public actions have led to real threats or harm to an advocate. The Criminal Code is also clarified: an attack or violence against an advocate due to their professional activities will be considered an aggravating circumstance, but the relevant article (Article 397 of the Criminal Code) existed before. In other words, the law specifies and strengthens existing norms to make the protection of advocates more real. Myth 1: “The law undermines freedom of speech” – where is the line between criticism and threats? The most vocal accusation from opponents is that this law allegedly poses a threat to freedom of speech and independent journalism. They say that now the media or activists will not even be able to mention who a particular advocate is defending for fear of punishment. Some publications have called the initiative a “threat to freedom of speech” and an “attack on democracy.” In reality, this is a myth based on a misrepresentation of the law's content. Firstly, there is no ban on reporting who an advocate represents, nor are there any plans to introduce one. No one will fine a journalist for saying, “Advocate Petrenko is the defence advocate for oligarch N.” Identification is something else entirely. Only the deliberate equating of an advocate with their client can be punished if it leads to negative consequences. In other words, the problem is not the mention itself, but the addition of labels such as “murderer advocate” or “traitor advocate,” which incite the crowd to violence. The bill explicitly requires the advocate to prove that such statements or publications have actually affected his safety, independence or family. Without this, there will be no penalty. Therefore, critical articles, investigations, and analytics are all protected by freedom of speech, as before. Only an extremely narrow segment falls under liability: calls for violence, threats, or defamatory identification that has caused harm. Incidentally, freedom of expression is not absolute in the European Convention on Human Rights either: it may be restricted in order to protect the reputation or safety of others (Article 10 of the ECHR). In this case, we are talking specifically about protecting the lives and professional rights of advocates – a legitimate goal recognised throughout the democratic world. Secondly, the procedure for imposing a fine is structured with several levels of verification to avoid any abuse or pressure on the media. An advocate who believes that he has been identified with a client in a dangerous way cannot simply “ban the article” or collect money from the journalist. First, they must apply to the regional Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar (composed of 10 members), which will hold a separate meeting and assess whether there were any negative consequences. Next, if the commission agrees, the advocate goes to court, where he must prove a causal link between the publication and, say, threats against him. Only if the court confirms the fact of identification and its harmful consequences will the offender face a fine of several thousand hryvnias. This is about $100 – a purely symbolic amount, which rather indicates a violation of ethical boundaries. And this money still has to be collected after winning the court case. In other words, the law is written in such a way as to hold only obvious violators accountable, those whose rhetoric has caused real harm. For honest journalists, bloggers, or activists who criticise but do not resort to threats and personal insults, practically nothing changes – they can still face a civil lawsuit for defamation if they spread blatant lies. Thirdly, the prohibition on identifying an advocate with their client is not a Ukrainian “know-how” that allegedly contradicts European norms, as critics claim. On the contrary, this approach is fully in line with European practice. The latest Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer explicitly provides that “lawyers shall not suffer adverse consequences as a result of being identified with their clients.” (Article 6.5). It is important that European experts have drafted this provision with a view to balancing it with freedom of speech – it is necessary to prove a real link between the statements and the damage, as noted by one of the drafters of the Convention, British barrister Jeremy McBride. Moreover, the Convention clearly warns that evaluative judgments and criticism are not considered identification in themselves. In other words, European standards already contain the same safeguards as the Ukrainian draft law. It is doubtful that 18 EU countries and the Council of Europe have unanimously decided to "violate freedom of speech" — rather, it is a matter of protecting the basic principles of justice. Ukraine, seeking to join the EU, is obliged to implement such approaches. It is also worth noting that reputable media outlets have always adhered to basic standards and have not branded advocates as criminals without a court ruling. No serious publication would write, for example, that “the advocate of oligarch X is guilty of financial fraud on a par with his client” if there is no verdict against the advocate himself. Therefore, the new law will by no means force honest journalists to “keep quiet” – it only restricts the right of the media to incite hostility and make threats, which, in the end, responsible media should not be doing anyway. In practice, Ukrainian journalism has already faced similar restrictions in other areas – for example, there are laws against defamation, incitement to violence, disclosure of investigation secrets, etc. And this is not considered an attack on the free press, but rather a civilised norm. Therefore, the claim that this is a “blow to freedom of speech” does not stand up to criticism. The law is narrowly aimed at protecting advocates from extreme forms of pressure and does not restrict the honest work of journalists. Moreover, its provisions are harmonised with European standards of freedom of expression, which recognise the possibility of liability for incitement to violence or serious defamation. Myth 2: “The protection of advocates is unnecessary/the problem is fictitious” Another argument put forward by critics is that the risks to advocates are exaggerated, that there are more important problems in Ukraine, and that identification is a rare occurrence that does not require a separate law. Some even argue that advocates themselves are to blame – they do not “communicate” enough, and should have conducted a PR campaign instead of pushing for changes to the Code. It got to the point where, at a special discussion conference organised with the support of Western donors, most of the speakers sided with the critics, and the advocates themselves were effectively denied a voice, making them the subject of discussion. So it is important to dot the i's and cross the t's: the problem of violence against advocates is real and serious, and it is unacceptable to continue to ignore it. Fact 1: Advocates are being killed, beaten, and intimidated not only in “third countries” but also in Ukraine, and this is happening more and more often. We have already mentioned several striking examples. We would like to add that, according to information from the Ukrainian National Bar Association, in 2023 alone, 46 criminal proceedings were officially registered for interference in the activities of defence advocates (for comparison, there were 15 in 2022 and 46 in 2024). And this is only what came to the attention of law enforcement agencies. At the same time, almost no one has been punished – pressure on advocates remains de facto unpunished. This is a systemic failure of the rule of law: people who defend the constitutional rights of citizens find themselves unprotected. Fact 2: The global context shows that the problem is not imaginary. According to a survey by the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), approximately 57% of lawyers in Europe have faced threats or aggression in the last few years, and more than a third have considered leaving the profession because of this. In other words, even in developed democracies, violence against advocates is not an exception but, unfortunately, a common occurrence. In response to these alarming trends, the Council of Europe has prepared a new convention for their protection. Hundreds of cases of attacks or persecution of lawyers because of their clients have been recorded in various countries. For example: Patrick Finucane, Northern Ireland – killed in 1989 for defending IRA suspects; investigations revealed collusion on the part of the authorities. Rosemary Nelson, Northern Ireland – blown up in her car in 1999 after receiving threats while defending Republican clients. Stanislav Markelov, Russia – shot dead in 2009 by radicals for defending victims of war crimes; the attackers were convicted, but the lawyer's life cannot be brought back. Geir Lippestad, Norway – received death threats in 2011–2012 for agreeing to defend mass murderer Anders Breivik. Ebru Timtik, Turkey – a lawyer who died in 2020 after a 238-day hunger strike in protest against her imprisonment; she was convicted of “terrorism” for defending opposition figures, in a case recognised as politically motivated. This list could go on and on. The point is that identifying an advocate with their client is a global problem, and Ukraine, unfortunately, is no exception. On the contrary, in our current circumstances – war, heightened sensitivity to the issue of collaboration – advocates who undertake to defend, for example, those accused of treason or collaboration with the enemy, easily become targets for radical elements. There has been a wave of attacks on advocates handling military cases (involving crimes committed in military registration and enlistment offices) – in the first half of 2023 alone, a third of all violations of advocates' rights were related to such cases. There have been cases where law enforcement officers themselves have put pressure on advocates: they have raided their homes or offices in connection with their clients' cases, trying to gain access to confidential defence files. All this sets a very dangerous precedent: advocates are perceived as “enemies” simply for doing their job. This should not be the case in a state governed by the rule of law. Fact 3: Existing laws have not previously provided an adequate response to this problem. The criminal offence of assaulting an advocate (Article 397) has been in place for a long time, but, as we have seen, it is largely ineffective. The ethical standards of the legal profession also condemn such behaviour, but this is more of a moral appeal than a mechanism of protection. Therefore, special measures are needed to ensure that offenders finally feel accountable. The introduction of an administrative fine is just such a measure. It is preventive in nature: public figures and opinion leaders will think twice before calling someone's advocate an “accomplice to a crime,” knowing that they can be held accountable for doing so. In other words, the law introduces a culture of responsibility for one's words – something we often lack. As Oleksander Oliinyk, a representative of the Ministry of Justice, rightly pointed out, there is still a practice in Ukraine where bloggers or activists feel they can say anything they want, thinking, “I'll say what I want, and nothing will happen to me.” Such permissiveness of speech, regardless of the consequences, sooner or later destroys the rule of law. Now is the time to learn to assess the possible consequences of your words, especially if you are an opinion leader or a well-known media outlet. Therefore, it is wrong and dangerous to downplay the problem. The protection of advocates is not a whim of a narrow group, but an urgent need for the entire justice system. The Ukrainian justice system is already going through difficult times, and if the trend of harassing advocates is not stopped, tomorrow every citizen may find themselves without qualified protection when their rights are violated. Myth 3: “This law protects bad advocates/corruptionists” Another misconception is that the law only benefits advocates themselves, even those who are involved in blatantly “dirty” cases, defending corrupt officials, traitors, etc. The argument is that society has the right to know who these “heroes” are, but they are being protected by immunity. In reality, the law is not about indulgences for dishonest advocates, but about protecting everyone's right to a fair trial. Let's explain in more detail. First, if an advocate himself violates the law, engages in corruption, misleads the court, or otherwise crosses the line, no one will protect him from liability. Neither the current legislation nor the new amendments grant advocates any immunity from punishment for their own crimes or disciplinary offences. Both journalists and the public are fully entitled to criticise an advocate if he or she has committed an offence or unethical act – the law on identification does not prohibit this in any way. The point is simply that it is not permissible to unjustifiably brand an advocate a criminal simply because they are diligently performing their duty to defend someone else. Secondly, the protection concerns not so much the personalities of advocates as the interests of their clients and society as a whole. Let's examine the paradox: when it comes to, say, a detained journalist or activist, the human rights community immediately demands that they be provided with an advocate and that no pressure be exerted on the defence. This is correct. But if tomorrow this advocate is harassed for defending the “wrong” client, won't the same activist or journalist suffer? The rights of the defendant are directly violated if his defender is intimidated or removed from the case due to threats. Therefore, by supporting the tools for the protection of advocates, we support the rights of everyone who may be affected by the justice system. Today it is a conditional oligarch or politician, and tomorrow it could be anyone who is unjustly accused or confronted with the repressive machine. Thirdly, there is a misconception that advocates are “bad” because they free criminals from punishment, “ruin cases,” and so on. Yes, in popular culture, there is a stereotype of a clever advocate who, for money, gets a scoundrel out of prison on the basis of formal loopholes. But the reality of justice is more complex. The main mission of an advocate is not to “get the guilty off the hook,” but to ensure that the innocent are not convicted or given a harsher punishment than they deserve. An advocate ensures that the investigation and prosecution act within the law, do not fabricate evidence, and do not exceed their powers. Unfortunately, there are cases of abuse and mistakes. In Ukraine, after the Revolution of Dignity, an alarming trend has emerged: law enforcement agencies and courts are increasingly violating the presumption of innocence by publicly declaring a person guilty even before the court's verdict. Show searches with photos of seized money posted on Telegram channels, as well as high-profile briefings on “exposing traitors” before the investigation is complete — all this has become the norm. In such an atmosphere, the role of the advocate as the voice of common sense and legality is incredibly important. He alone reminds us: “Wait for the court's decision, provide evidence, follow the procedure.” And if his voice is silenced, the system will slide back into medieval mob justice. History provides vivid examples of why even the worst criminals have the right to defence. At the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II, lawyers represented Nazi leaders such as Göring, Ribbentrop, and others. It would seem, why give a voice to lawyers for obvious war criminals? However, the judges insisted: so that the verdicts would be impeccably fair and no one would doubt that the convicted were not “martyrs” but the real culprits. The lawyers did their job, and some of the defendants even had their death sentences commuted to imprisonment – the world saw that justice had been done fairly, without lynching. Similarly, an Israeli court provided lawyers for Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann in 1961 because it understood the importance of a trial that was as open and fair as possible. These examples are not about “pity” for criminals, but about a principle: there can be no fair trial without the right to defence. Therefore, the law prohibiting identification does not “cover up for bad people,” but protects the mechanism that distinguishes us from vigilante justice and dictatorship. It protects the institution of the legal profession, without which justice becomes a farce. Democracy is measured precisely by the extent to which the state guarantees the rights of even unpopular, even odious figures — and advocates are key figures in this process, however painful it may sometimes be for society to admit. European standards and an example for Ukraine The law on the protection of Ukrainian advocates from harassment is fully in line with European standards and trends. Moreover, it can be called the fulfilment of international obligations that Ukraine will soon formally assume by signing the aforementioned Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer. This Convention is the world's first international treaty aimed exclusively at guaranteeing the safety and independence of lawyers. It did not appear out of nowhere: the preamble directly mentions “the increase in reports of attacks, threats and obstruction” of the work of lawyers in Europe and around the world. Ukrainian experts participated in its development, so our context was taken into account. On 13 May 2025, the document was opened for signature in Luxembourg, and on the same day it was signed by 18 states, including all key EU countries (France, Italy, Sweden, Poland, Great Britain, etc.). Ukraine has also announced its intention to join, and work is already underway on translation and preparation for ratification. What does the Convention provide for? In short, it guarantees lawyers the right to perform their duties without fear of physical attacks, intimidation, interference, or persecution. It sets out clear guarantees: the right of lawyers to freedom of expression, confidentiality of communication with clients, access to clients, and attorney-client privilege – all of which are fundamental to an independent legal profession. And, as already mentioned, the Convention specifically warns against identifying lawyers with their clients as a dangerous practice. This provision has been harmonised with existing Council of Europe human rights documents so that the protection of lawyers does not conflict with freedom of expression. Europeans spent about ten years agreeing on the text, carefully weighing every word. The result is a balanced approach that takes into account both the rights of journalists and the rights of lawyers. It is worth mentioning the position of representatives of the European Bar, voiced during an international conference in Kyiv. Marie-Aimee Peyron, Vice-President of the French National Bar Council, emphasised: “A lawyer can never be identified with a client,” because everyone, even the worst, has an equal right to justice. She was supported by Frédéric Teper, a member of the French Bar Council, who noted that without this condition, a lawyer cannot guarantee the quality of legal assistance. In other words, if a lawyer is afraid of being tainted by their client's misdeeds, they cannot work effectively – and justice will suffer as a result. Former President of the European Association of Lawyers (AEA-EAL) Maria Ślązak (Poland) cited an interesting fact: in Britain and Canada, lawyers have a direct obligation to defend even very unpopular clients – refusal is possible only in exceptional cases. This is done precisely for the benefit of citizens: if lawyers start choosing only “likeable” clients, hundreds of people may be left without defence. “Defence does not mean agreeing with the client's behaviour or actions; defence is a guarantee of a fair trial,” Ms. Ślązak emphasised. In the context of Ukraine, she noted that our advocates are currently facing particularly difficult challenges, in particular, defending those accused of collaboration or even enemy soldiers. And that is why such protection of advocates by law is extremely necessary. So, instead of distancing itself from Europe, as opponents fear, Ukraine is moving closer to European standards by implementing this law. We are demonstrating that we are adopting best practices and sharing the values of the rule of law. In EU countries, lawyers are respected figures, and an attack on a lawyer is perceived as an attack on justice and democratic institutions. We should strive for this too. Incidentally, a direct ban on identifying lawyers already exists in some European legislations. For example, in Poland, there is a rule that public statements equating a lawyer with their client may be considered a violation of the law (although this is regulated by ethics and civil law). So Ukraine's move is by no means unique; our neighbours are moving in the same direction. Why protecting advocates is beneficial to society and the state To sum up: advocates are a key link in the justice system, as essential to democracy as independent courts, a free press, or an honest police force. When we protect advocates, we protect every citizen's right to a fair trial. Everyone benefits from a strong legal profession: Citizens. At a critical moment, when a person is accused of a crime or becomes a victim of arbitrariness, only an advocate stands by their side against the machinery of state prosecution. If advocates are intimidated, any of us may be left alone to face the system. A well-protected advocate is not afraid to take on the most difficult cases, which means that ordinary citizens will not be left to fend for themselves. The state and justice. Paradoxically, by protecting advocates, the state also protects its own image. There is no worse blow to a country's reputation than an advocate being killed or beaten for performing their professional duties – this is evidence of legal chaos. On the contrary, if Ukraine introduces new guarantees and shows that it values the role of the legal profession, this will be positively received by its European partners and the international community. And this, ultimately, will help attract investment and strengthen confidence in our courts. Journalists and activists. Despite the apparent conflict, honest journalists benefit from order and legality just as much as advocates do. It is impossible to build a just society if the rights of one professional group (in this case, advocates) are disregarded. Today, some people justify the persecution of “foreign” advocates, but tomorrow the same logic could be turned against journalists or human rights defenders. The precedent of unpunished harassment is dangerous for everyone. Therefore, rules prohibiting violence and threats are useful for anyone who exercises freedom of speech responsibly. This creates a healthier information environment where criticism is separated from hate speech. Opponents of the law sometimes argue that in times of war, we must fight collaborators and traitors, rather than “inventing privileges” for advocates. But this war is precisely about ensuring that Ukraine remains a democratic state governed by the rule of law, rather than becoming a mirror image of its enemy. The rule of law is our shield against sliding into authoritarianism. If we allow extrajudicial punishment of even one advocate (or journalist, or judge – it doesn't matter), will we be any better than the regime we are fighting against? It is not for nothing that Europe values adherence to procedure so highly, even in the most emotional situations. This is not weakness or bureaucracy – it is the power of common sense, which has gone through numerous wars and cataclysms and proven itself right. A protected advocate is a direct fulfillment of the requirements of the Constitution. The presumption of innocence, the right to defence, the right to a fair trial – all these principles, enshrined in Article 62 of the Basic Law, come to life only when an advocate can freely do his job. If he is intimidated, constitutional guarantees will remain beautiful words on paper. Parliament has taken a real important step towards protecting human rights All the arguments considered point to one thing: Ukraine needs a law prohibiting the identification of advocates with their clients. It does not pose any threat to freedom of speech – instead, it eliminates a legal loophole that allowed defenders to be harassed with impunity. It does not contradict European norms – on the contrary, it introduces a national mechanism in line with the latest European Convention, which aims to raise the standards of democratic justice. It does not “corrupt” advocates or harm society – on the contrary, it helps to ensure that every citizen has access to a courageous and independent advocate without fear of reprisals. President Zelenskyy should sign this law, thereby demonstrating his commitment to the principle of the rule of law not in words but in deeds. This will send a positive signal to the entire legal community, both in Ukraine and beyond. Respect for advocates means respect for fair trials, and without fair trials there can be no true democracy, no successful reforms, and no public trust in the state. This law also carries an important lesson for journalists and opinion leaders. It reminds us of our responsibility: words have weight, especially when they can cause real harm to someone. A free press is not about permissiveness, but above all about responsibility to society. Criticism is the oxygen of democracy, but calls for violence are poison. By rejecting the latter, we will only improve the information climate and make it more civilised. Finally, it should be noted that the protection of advocates is not about privileges, but about the safety of each of us. Imagine that tomorrow you need an advocate, no matter what the reason. You will want this person to be able to defend you boldly and professionally. You would not want them to refuse to support you out of fear for their own life or reputation. Therefore, by supporting the law on the protection of advocates today, we are investing in our own safety and justice for tomorrow. And this is a sign of the maturity of a nation that has chosen the path of law rather than vigilante justice. The material was published in the publication Censor.net. Автор публікації: Serhii Liamets Serhii Liamets journalist, blogger
© 2025 Unba.org.ua Всі права захищені "Національна Асоціація Адвокатів України". Передрук та інше використання матеріалів, що розміщені на даному веб-сайті дозволяється за умови посилання на джерело. Інтернет-видання та засоби масової інформації можуть використовувати матеріали сайту, розміщувати відео з офіційного веб-сайту Національної Асоціації Адвокатів України на власних веб-сторінках, за умови гіперпосилання на офіційний веб-сайт Національної Асоціації Адвокатів України. Заборонено передрук та використання матеріалів, у яких міститься посилання на інші інтернет-видання та засоби масової інформації. Матеріали позначені міткою "Реклама", публікуються на правах реклами.

Protecting advocates – protecting justice: addressing concerns about the new law

Home quote