The issue of Bar self-governance has become so critical in recent years that it was included among the priorities of the Rule of Law Roadmap approved by Ukraine in May 2025. This is also reflected in last year’s Shadow Report to the European Commission’s Report on Ukraine.
In other words, the matter goes beyond the internal ‘kitchen’ of Ukrainian Bar self-governance — and directly affects the entire justice sector and all European integration processes in Ukraine.
Let us examine what exactly has ‘gone wrong’ in Ukrainian Bar self-governance.
The (Non-)Renewal of Bar Self-Governance
Let us begin with the pressing issue — the elective nature of Bar self-governance bodies (BSG bodies). This is a key element of the institutional independence of the Bar and, consequently, one of the fundamental guarantees of the rule of law and access to justice.
It is precisely the BSG bodies that determine the rules governing the profession in Ukraine. Therefore, the system for their election is of key importance. The highest body is the Congress of Advocates of Ukraine, whose delegates are elected at the Conferences of Advocates of the Regions (CAR) according to established quotas. However, this electiveness is merely formal, as the processes within the BSG bodies have for a long time been under the centralised monopoly of the Bar Council of Ukraine and the Ukrainian National Bar Association (UNBA) — since their establishment in 2012 following the adoption of the current Law of Ukraine ‘On the Bar and Practice of Law’. In other words, for 13 years the BSG bodies have remained under the leadership of the same individuals, headed by Lidiia Izovitova, who, according to numerous reports, has close ties with Viktor Medvedchuk, accused of high treason. It is the BСU that determines representation quotas and approves the procedure for nominating and electing delegates both to the Conference of Advocates of the Region (CAR) and to the Congress of Advocates of Ukraine.
This effectively preserves Bar self-governance in its existing form and turns it into a closed system with features of manual control, bearing little resemblance to transparency or openness. As a result, the monopoly has produced predictable ‘results’: the term of office of the leadership of the BCU expired as far back as November 2022 (the Law provides for a five-year term, which may be extended only once), yet the Congress of Advocates has not been convened. Everything is attributed to the full-scale war and the alleged impossibility of gathering advocates in one place for security reasons. This not only blocks the re-election of the Bar leadership but also prevents the exercise of constitutional powers — in particular, the delegation of two representatives to the High Council of Justice (HCJ) and one representative to the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors (QDCP) under the advocates’ quota.
Instead, the BCU, contrary to the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Bar and Practice of Law’, unilaterally extended its mandate until the end of martial law, referring to institutional continuity — that is, the principle of continuity of activity.
At the same time, congresses of judges, academics and prosecutors have been held repeatedly, even under conditions of full-scale invasion, although they too could have relied on similar wording and continued to operate in their previous compositions. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine also continues its work despite current realities. Yevhen Krapyvin, Head of the ‘Law and Order’ Area at the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, does not consider the reference to continuity to be legally justified as a basis for failing to convene the Congress of Advocates after 2022. Particularly given that, for example, prosecutors have already held more than one All-Ukrainian Conference of Prosecutors during the full-scale war.
The expert notes that the ‘principle of continuity’ invoked by the UNBA does indeed exist. However, its meaning is interpreted depending on the branch of law in which it is applied. It may refer to the continuity of the state in international law, the preservation of constitutional institutions during the transition from one legal regime to another, territorial continuity and so forth. Accordingly, if legislative norms are to be invoked, they should be applied in full rather than selectively, and not limited solely to those formulations that are convenient for extending the powers of the BSG bodies.
Over nearly four years of full-scale war, the BCU has repeatedly had the opportunity to initiate changes to the mechanism for holding the Congress of Advocates. For example, through online voting via Diia or other means of simplifying the procedure for electing delegates, as the Agency for Legislative Initiatives has previously written. However, the leadership of the Bar has not done so.
Instead, Lidiia Izovitova seeks reasons why this would not work: ‘Proposals are being made regarding electronic voting. Let us return to our realities: front-line territories… electronic warfare systems — they jam communications, you cannot transmit information — that is the first point… The second — lack of electricity and, as a consequence, lack of internet access. What kind of electronic voting can we speak of?’. At the same time, regions with (potential) hostilities — Kherson, Odesa, Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia — have once again been cited among the reasons why elections cannot be held. Daria Pysarenko, Director of NGO ‘Tomorrow’s Lawyer’, has noted that such reasoning is at the very least contradictory, as the UNBA previously held large-scale events without difficulty, including in Kharkiv in 2024 at the premises of the Law University.
Discipline and Ethics — Also on Hold?
A de facto non-functioning system of Bar self-governance leads to problems of another nature — disciplinary ones. Among other functions, the work of the Congress of Advocates of Ukraine is also directed at disciplinary matters, as it elects the Head and Deputy Heads of the High Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar (HQDCB), as well as the composition of the High Audit Commission of the Bar (HACB).
According to Daria Pysarenko, Director of NGO ‘Tomorrow’s Lawyer’, this situation gives rise to serious concerns regarding the disciplinary system of the Bar. These concerns were brought into sharper focus by the formation of the competition commission for the selection of senior positions in the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO).
Oleksii Shevchuk, a lawyer, was appointed to the commission. According to journalistic investigations, he has been linked to high-profile cases, including a corruption scheme involving the unlawful departure of men abroad and the disappearance of 10,000 military first-aid kits from the United States, worth over UAH 33 million. Notably, in 2023, Oleksii Shevchuk participated in the competition for the High Council of Justice (HCJ), during which he received a negative opinion from the Ethics Council, meaning that he was found not to meet the criteria of professional ethics and integrity. Although such an opinion is not binding for other competitions and does not entail legal consequences of a different nature, it nevertheless established facts of unethical conduct in the past. In the same year, the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar of the Kyiv Region (QDCB) attempted to deprive Oleksii Shevchuk of his right to practise law for violating the Rules of Legal Ethics. However, the decision was overturned, and Shevchuk subsequently assumed the position of spokesperson of the Ukrainian National Bar Association (UNBA).
This raises the question of why the disciplinary system did not function properly in this case. ‘There is no possibility of reviewing all decisions adopted in the relevant disciplinary proceedings, which once again underscores the urgent need to establish a comprehensive public register of disciplinary decisions’, notes Daria Pysarenko.
According to the Director of NGO ‘Tomorrow’s Lawyer’, this situation demonstrates the necessity of strengthening the independence of the disciplinary bodies of the Bar. As is known, the Head of the HQDCB is currently appointed by decision of the Bar Council of Ukraine, whereas the law expressly provides that he or she must be elected exclusively by the Congress of Advocates of Ukraine. ‘Such interference in the activities of a disciplinary body is unacceptable and undermines trust in the entire system of professional self-governance’, the expert emphasises.
Lack of Change as a Barrier to European Integration
The prolonged absence of genuine electiveness and the artificially frozen composition of the governing bodies of the Bar systematically harm the entire sector. Instead of transparent and democratic practices, the UNBA and the BCU pursue advocates for criticising the leadership, while disciplinary practice has become a closed instrument of influence. All of this is justified by reference to the war and to the principle of continuity.
Moreover, the consequences have long extended beyond the Bar itself and directly affect — and damage — the entire justice system. The opacity of disciplinary practice and of the BSG bodies as a whole, the failure to exercise constitutional powers, the blocking of the Congress of Advocates and the deliberate disregard of the obligation to delegate representatives to the HCJ and the QDCP paralyse the renewal of the judiciary and the reform of law enforcement bodies. Accordingly, they also hinder Ukraine’s European integration.
It is therefore logical that the state cannot remain on the sidelines when the governing bodies of the Bar have, since 2019, blocked any attempts to reform the sector. The actions of the Ministry of Justice, in particular the establishment of a working group on improving legislation in the field of the Bar and practice of law, constitute a necessary and logical response to a deep institutional crisis which the Bar itself has long refused to address. Although the Bar is a self-governing profession, the element of state regulation is significant — it is sufficient to examine the relevant Law of Ukraine ‘On the Bar and Practice of Law’. Given that the Bar occupies a central place within the justice system alongside the courts and the prosecution service, it is impossible to speak of reforming the justice sector without reforming the Bar.
These are precisely the European integration obligations concerning the Bar, which each year become more specific and more clearly defined. Whereas previously the European Commission would diplomatically hint, in a single sentence, at the need for reform, the most recent Enlargement Report stated unequivocally: ‘Ukraine needs to urgently launch a comprehensive reform of the Bar’. Moreover, given Ukraine’s inability to independently formulate a reform agenda, the EU has gone so far as to propose substantive directions for change in its reports — something the European Commission would not ordinarily be expected to do. At the same time, European partners have emphasised that ‘Re-elections of Bar self-governance bodies have not been conducted despite the expiry of their mandates’. In essence, they have made it clear that the war is not a reason to postpone the Congress of Advocates and the re-election of the Bar leadership, nor to refrain from reforming the sector.
