+44 (0) 800 123 4567 No.1 Abbey Road London, W1 ECH, UK

Law No. 2261 and its main consequences for the Ukrainian legal market

Amendments which introduced the lawyer’s monopoly shook the Ukrainian market in 2016. Pursuant to the Constitution of Ukraine, only a trial lawyer is allowed to represent another person in court.

The commented law of 18 December 2019, introduced changes to Ukrainian procedural codes, having made it possible for both government bodies and legal entities of public and private law to represent their interests through persons with the right to act on their behalf as specified by a law, articles of association, provision or labour contract under the procedure of self-representation.

The changes made to procedural codes have expanded the notion of self-representation for legal entities and enabled its application by government bodies and institutions, which was unknown before. In particular, the law of 18 December 2019, abolished the lawyer’s monopoly regarding presentation of interests of legal entities and government bodies in court. Today, as it was in 2016, legal entities may yet again be represented in court by in-house lawyers and legal counsels. At the same time, such content of the procedural codes in respect of self-presentation of government bodies is not in line with the existing.

We predict that the rights protection practice will side with the lawmaker in implementation of amendments to the Law of 12 December 2019, though such changes yet again refer to the lack of consistency in the reform of legislation.

What about the implications of such changes?

The aforementioned changes have resolved one of the most acute problems, namely labour dependence of the in-house lawyer (former legal counsel) on his employer, which contradicted certain provisions of the Lawyer’s Code of Ethics and excluded even a chance of independent actions by such a lawyer. In addition to this, such changes will help to cut budgets expenditures of both government bodies and legal entities to engage trial lawyers into court representation. In turn, such changes may bring about certain unpleasantness for the Bar in general caused by a loss of clients in less complicated disputes which, in its turn, is going to intensify the ongoing battle for clients. Apart from this, the aforementioned changes may be felt by the judiciary as new/ old legal counsels or representatives are not burdened by the rules of the lawyer’s professional conduct in their professional activities, and may not be aware of procedure subtleties of litigation and the need to respectfully treat the judiciary. 

 

6921