An attorney's right to practice is not unconditional. Article 34 of the Law of Ukraine "On Advocacy and Advocacy Activities" establishes seven grounds for disciplinary misconduct — and each of them can lead to suspension or even deprivation of the right to engage in advocacy.
What the law considers a misconduct
The list is closed and specific. According to the Higher Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar (HQDCB), disciplinary misconduct includes:
- Violation of incompatibility requirements — for example, combining advocacy activities with work in a position that does not permit it.
- Violation of the oath of an attorney of Ukraine — one of the broadest formulations that covers any conduct incompatible with the honor and dignity of the profession.
- Violation of the rules of attorney ethics — from improper social media publications to disclosing a client's position without consent.
- Disclosure of attorney-client privilege or actions leading to it.
- Failure to perform or improper performance of professional duties — the most common ground for client complaints.
- Failure to comply with decisions of bar self-governance bodies.
- Violation of other attorney obligations provided for by law.
An important detail: losing a case in court is not grounds for disciplinary liability in itself. As the National Association of Attorneys of Ukraine directly states, a decision rendered against a client does not entail punishment if no disciplinary misconduct was committed in the process.
Prolonging the process: where is the line
The question of whether systematic non-appearance or abuse of motions can become grounds for disciplinary proceedings is one of the most practically significant. The rules of attorney ethics directly prohibit "committing acts aimed at unjustified prolongation of court proceedings." Judges are among the most active complainants to the DCC precisely because of process prolongation — in particular through systematic absences from hearings.
At the same time, the HQDCB in its practice distinguishes between intentional abuse and forced absence: filing requests for adjournment for good reasons — business trips, vacation, other proceedings — is not classified as disciplinary misconduct. The key criterion is intent and systematicity.
"An attorney must not commit acts aimed at unjustified prolongation of court proceedings."
Rules of Attorney Ethics (NAAU)
Who can file a complaint — and who cannot abuse it
Any person can initiate disciplinary proceedings — a client, an opposing party, a judge through a separate order, or a prosecutor. The complaint is filed with the qualification and disciplinary commission of the bar (DCC) at the place of the attorney's work address listed in the Unified Register of Attorneys of Ukraine.
However, the law contains a direct prohibition: disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated without sufficient grounds or as a means of pressure on an attorney in connection with his activities. Complaints with no signs of disciplinary misconduct or anonymous complaints are not considered.
Four stages and a scale of penalties
Disciplinary proceedings go through four mandatory stages: verification of information, initiation of a case, consideration, and adoption of a decision. A member of the disciplinary chamber is required to obtain written explanations from the attorney. The decision is adopted by majority vote no later than 30 days after receiving the verification materials.
As a result, the DCC may apply one of the following penalties:
- Warning — the mildest form of response.
- Suspension of the right to engage in advocacy activities for a period from one month to one year.
- Deprivation of the right to engage in advocacy activities with exclusion from the Unified Register of Attorneys of Ukraine — for attorneys of Ukraine.
- Exclusion from the register — for attorneys of foreign states.
The statute of limitations is one year from the date of the misconduct. The DCC's decision can be appealed to the HQDCB, which does not consider complaints against attorneys themselves, but only reviews decisions of lower commissions.
Real practice: when deprivation occurs
The HQDCB in its summaries records cases where an attorney formally suspended the right to practice — for example, due to health reasons — but continued to participate in court hearings as a defender. Such actions were classified as a single gross violation of the Rules of Attorney Ethics and the oath, which entailed maximum punishment — deprivation of status. Similarly — disclosure of a client's banking secrecy without consent through attorney inquiries.
A separate signal for judges and parties to proceedings: the court has no right to obligate the DCC to "bring an attorney to responsibility" or "open proceedings" — this was confirmed by the Supreme Court in case No. 641/463/16-a. The commission acts independently.
If the HQDCB in its summaries increasingly records complaints from judges about procedural abuse by attorneys — the question arises: will systematic non-appearance without good reasons become an independent ground for initiating disciplinary proceedings, rather than merely one piece of evidence in it?
