On July 16, 2025, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted in second reading and in full the Draft Law of Ukraine No. 12320: “On Amendments to the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, the Criminal Code, and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine to Ensure Compliance with the Guarantees of Legal Practice.” According to the explanatory note, the draft law was developed and adopted in response to the issue of “violations of the guarantees of legal practice, particularly the prohibition against equating a lawyer with their client, which has become especially relevant due to the sharp increase in criminal proceedings related to the armed aggression of the Russian Federation.”
The issue of ensuring the independence of legal professionals is not unique to Ukraine. In March 2025, the Council of Europe adopted the Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer, which has been open for signature since May 13. Eighteen countries have signed the Convention, but Ukraine has not yet joined them. Among other provisions, the Convention guarantees protection for both lawyers and their clients, including the right to access a lawyer of one’s choice in cases of deprivation of liberty, protection of legal professional privilege during searches, protection from unlawful interference or obstruction, and more. One of the safeguards provided under Article 6(5) of the Convention is the obligation of the state to ensure that lawyers do not suffer adverse consequences as a result of being identified with their clients or their clients’ cases, while also taking into account applicable protections for freedom of expression.
The right to a fair trial and the right to freedom of speech are competing rights. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly addressed the need to balance these rights under Articles 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to privacy), and 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. In each individual case, the Court assessed the balance between the rights of the person concerned and, for example, the public interest.
Current Ukrainian legislation guarantees everyone the right to protect their business reputation in court. Therefore, lawyers who believe they have been unfairly identified with their clients have full legal grounds to pursue such protection through existing procedures. The introduction of additional legislative protections should be aimed solely at safeguarding the right to a fair trial. At the same time, this obligation should not fall exclusively on the media, but must also be borne by the judiciary and the legal profession, both of which must respond appropriately to instances of corruption—particularly those revealed in the media and ignored by anti-corruption bodies, law enforcement, or the judiciary itself.
The adopted wording of the amendments includes a note stating that identifying a lawyer with their client means any form of identification (association or linking) of a lawyer with a client, with the client’s activities or actions, that creates bias toward the lawyer, implies the lawyer’s personal involvement in the client’s case, affects the lawyer’s independent status and/or exerts undue pressure during the exercise of legal practice, and/or violates the guarantees of legal practice, and/or obstructs the realization of the lawyer’s rights as set out in the Law of Ukraine “On the Bar and Legal Practice.” Such conduct—even when committed without the intention of obstructing the lawyer in carrying out their legally prescribed duties of defense, representation, or other forms of legal assistance—may result in fines ranging from UAH 3,700 to UAH 5,100.
We note that the wording of the new Article 185-16 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses and the accompanying note contain a number of legal drafting flaws. In particular, the excessive use of “and/or” creates ambiguity as to whether an offense is established by the presence of just one of the listed elements or a cumulative combination. Under certain interpretations, simply stating that a lawyer is representing a client in a particular case may be punishable as “identification of the lawyer with the client… implying personal involvement in the client’s case.” Similarly, any reference to a lawyer that is deemed to exert pressure on their professional activities—even if made without any intent to obstruct the provision of legal assistance—could be subject to penalties.
The adopted version significantly complicates journalists’ ability to mention lawyers or critique their chosen defense strategies, especially in high-profile cases where procedural stalling tactics are common. These include cases related to corruption, illegal construction, harm to the public interest, cultural heritage, or the environment. A telling example is the obstruction of journalistic activity in the office of then-Chairman of Ukreximbank Yevhen Metsher. Court proceedings in that case lasted more than two years—an excessively long duration—and ended with the dismissal of criminal charges due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Delays in the trial were caused, among other things, by the defense repeatedly submitting motions to postpone hearings due to health conditions—motions that were granted by the court despite signs of procedural abuse.
Accordingly, any criticism of lawyers who delay legal proceedings not through argument or evidence but through procedural formalism may be construed as pressure on the lawyer—and therefore may pose a threat to the media, which is already in a vulnerable position due to the war and its economic consequences.
Additionally, the newly introduced provisions will place an added burden on local media outlets, which are already in a financially precarious situation due to the full-scale war and the shutdown of donor programs.
Furthermore, even though the draft law includes a filter limiting the list of individuals authorized to file administrative offense reports (heads of the bar councils of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, regions, and the cities of Kyiv and Sevastopol, or members of the bar councils authorized by the councils themselves), there remains a risk that courts may issue rulings that have a chilling effect on media freedom to cover matters of public interest.
In light of the above, we call on:
The President of Ukraine:
– to veto the adopted law, as its flawed legal drafting poses a threat to freedom of expression;
– to conduct consultations with the Ministry of Justice and instruct the signing of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer (CETS No. 226), followed by the submission of the corresponding ratification bill to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
The legal community:
– to actively make use of media self-regulation mechanisms and respond to journalistic investigations into deliberate delays by lawyers that undermine the principle of the right to a fair trial.
Regional Press Development Institute (RPDI)
Ukrainian Media and Communication Institute
Souspilnist Foundation
National Union of Journalists of Ukraine
Centre for Democracy and Rule of Law