The Bar Is the Only Justice Sector Where Systemic Reform Has Not Yet Started — 2025 Shadow Report

The Bar Is the Only Justice Sector Where Systemic Reform Has Not Yet Started — 2025 Shadow Report

Daryna Pysarenko, Director of Tomorrow’s Lawyer 

specially for Watchers.media

The reform of the Bar should become a success story on Ukraine’s path to European integration. In the best-case scenario, the Bar should not even be mentioned on the path to the EU due to the absence of any systemic problems in its functioning. It would be sufficient to properly perform the constitutionally defined functions of the Bar, comply with the requirements of current legislation, ensure the timely and authoritative delegation of representatives to the High Council of Justice and the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors, organise and conduct elections of bar self-government bodies in accordance with established procedures, as is done by other self-governing institutions, and adopt transparent, reasonable and predictable regulations of bar self-government bodies.

Bodies of Bar self-government (hereinafter referred to as BSG) have extremely comprehensive authority and the ability to adapt even during wartime. However, today we observe a profession that has not only lost its dynamics of development but increasingly resembles a closed private corporation rather than a public institution designed to protect human rights.

A coalition of civil society organisations has prepared a second shadow report to the European Commission’s report on sections 23 ‘Judiciary and fundamental rights’ and 24 ‘Justice, freedom and security’ of negotiation cluster 1 ‘THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ACCESSION PROCESS’. And while other parts of the report in the areas of justice, human rights and the rule of law have changed significantly over the past year, the situation with the Bar is quite the opposite. Over 40 pages of the report provide a reasoned and consistent explanation of this.

This year, at one of the closed meetings to present the Shadow Report, I had to say: ‘Nothing has changed over the last year. In fact, it has become worse.’ I sincerely hope that the issue of the legal profession will not stand in the way of Ukraine’s path to the EU.

The reform of the Bar is no longer optional; it is dictated by common sense and the needs of society — the very society that is meant to be the primary beneficiary of its services.

On the positive side, the reform of the Bar has officially become part of the European integration agenda. It is included in the Roadmap for Reforms (p. 24) and is to be reflected in two more strategic documents — those of the Office of the President and the National Agency for Corruption Prevention. This indicates that the reform is inevitable. At the same time, the bar self-government bodies themselves have not demonstrated any systemic changes over the past year.

In this year’s Shadow Report, the authors — experts from the NGO ‘’ Tomorrow’s Lawyer ’ — traditionally focused on analysing problems in the areas of access to the profession, professional development of lawyers, and the application of disciplinary procedures. A separate section is devoted to researching shortcomings in the formation of bar self-government bodies and the election system. The state of guarantees and rights in the practice of law is also analysed in detail.

1. The bodies of Bar self-government (BSG) were supposed to be re-elected three years ago, but this has not happened. A significant part of the BSG was elected back in 2012 and re-elected in 2017. Arguments about ‘impossibility due to the war’ have long lost their persuasiveness: judicial and prosecutorial self-government managed to hold their elections twice. This is not a question of war — it is a question of political will. For the third year in a row, the Bar Association has not delegated two representatives to the High Council of Justice. Thus, the Bar remains the only institution that has not fulfilled its duty in this process. The President of Ukraine and the Council of Judges have already fulfilled their duties.

The impact of the absence of representatives from the bar and how this affects decision-making is discussed in this article. Members of the High Council of Justice constantly talk about how the personnel crisis is negatively affecting the ability to make decisions.

At the same time, the Bar Council of Ukraine (BCU) – a permanent body between congresses – has delegated three candidates to the Commission, which is to form the High Qualification Commission of Judges. Such selectivity is not a sign of consistency, but rather of a manipulative approach: when decisions are made not on the basis of the law or professional responsibility, but on the basis of situational convenience.

2. The bar election system. The current rules for forming bar self-government bodies, as defined by law and internal acts of the bar associations themselves, create an overly centralised system. Its members are elected through non-transparent, undemocratic and non-competitive procedures. At the same time, since 2022, some regions have been systematically appealing to the BCU to start the election cycle and approve representation quotas so that they can hold their own reporting and election conferences. This dependence of the regions on the central level not only seems illogical, but also contradicts the very idea of self-government. Detailed examples and analysis are provided in the Report itself.

3. Access to the profession. We are still in a system where access to the bar remains opaque and the procedure itself is morally and technologically outdated. Currently, entry into the profession effectively takes place behind closed doors, without the proper level of openness and control. The most problematic issue is the complete absence of clearly defined requirements for the integrity and ethical standards of candidates. In fact, if we compare access to the professions of judge, prosecutor and lawyer, the contrast is obvious and not in favour of the bar, which creates risks both for the quality of legal aid and for public confidence in the institution of the bar.

4.Continuing Professional Development. The system for professional development of lawyers is gradually losing its meaning and increasingly becoming a formality. This is openly discussed by the lawyers themselves, who are forced to undergo training in conditions of monopoly – at the Higher School of Advocacy.

We have analysed the new Regulations on the professional development of lawyers and changes in the procedure for admitting other operators to this process. It is worth recalling that the new rules, adopted in 2025, appeared after a court decision that declared certain provisions of the previous Regulations to be unlawful. At the same time, the adoption of a new document with practically identical content looks like an attempt at a formal response aimed more at imitating change than at eliminating systemic problems. A specific issue examined in the report is disciplinary complaints filed by the Higher School of Advocacy against lawyers as a means of exerting pressure.

5. Disciplinary procedure. We still do not have a comprehensive and open register of disciplinary decisions covering all decisions of the Bar Qualification and Disciplinary Commissions (KQDC). The existence of such a register is a necessary condition for transparency in disciplinary practice: lawyers need to understand what violations may result in liability, and clients need to have access to information about their representative’s disciplinary history. This is not only a matter of professional ethics, but also a matter of society’s right to know and an element of real access to justice. The absence of a public register of disciplinary decisions creates risks of selective application of sanctions and legal uncertainty. There is also a need for a legislative definition of the concept of disciplinary misconduct by a lawyer and regulation of the disciplinary procedure.

6. The violations of lawyers’ rights and guarantees are being recorded more and more frequently every year. The situation has become particularly acute during the war, when certain state bodies began to use mobilisation mechanisms as a tool to put pressure on male lawyers. Cases of violations of lawyers’ guarantees of access to their clients, which directly affect the exercise of the right to defence, deserve special attention. In such situations, lawyers have every right to expect a more active and principled position from the bar self-government bodies.

The expansion and strengthening of lawyers’ rights and guarantees deserve special attention, particularly in criminal proceedings.

7. The bar’s finances. The legal community has not seen a single official financial report from the bar’s self-governing bodies for almost four years. The system, which today unites more than 70,000 lawyers, operates with significant funds — these are annual contributions from lawyers, payments for access to the profession, and other revenues, which together amount to hundreds of millions of hryvnias per year. At the same time, even in this area, the lack of transparency is being justified by the war.

What do European institutions say about the situation in the legal profession and how to move forward?

For two years in a row, the European Commission has been stating directly that Ukraine’s legal profession needs a complete reset, mentioning the election system, financial component, access to the profession, professional development, and disciplinary procedures. We expect that this year’s report, which we will see on 4 November, will contain the same issues. Ukraine must move towards sound rules in the legal profession: the election of leadership only by secret ballot and using online tools to engage the entire community; financial reporting must be public; disciplinary procedures must be open and independent. The Ukrainian model, on the other hand, remains closed, with risks of political influence, conflicts of interest and abuse.

The roadmap for reforms, approved by the government in May 2025, offers a real chance to change the situation. But a chance does not mean a guarantee. Further progress will depend on how actively all parties engage in the process – first and foremost the parliament, which must ensure the proper regulatory framework for reform. At the same time, it is important for lawyers themselves to take a proactive stance and participate in the formation of a modern, open and accountable system of self-government. It is this approach that can restore trust in the profession and strengthen its role in a democratic state governed by the rule of law.

The bar is a self-governing institution and, regardless of the future model, bar self-government bodies must play a key role in its development. It is the renewed self-government, formed according to new democratic and competitive rules, that should shape a new culture of access to the profession, professional development, disciplinary procedures, and protection of lawyers’ rights and guarantees.

At the same time, these changes must be reflected at the legislative level. The new law or amendments to the current one must provide for appropriate mechanisms to prevent possible abuse by the SGB. Therefore, the further success of the reform will largely depend on the appropriate legislative activity of the Ukrainian Parliament and its willingness to support systemic reforms in the legal profession.

For more details on the analysis of the state of the legal profession in Ukraine, see the Shadow Report to Section 23 ‘ Judiciary and Fundamental Rights’ and Section 24 ‘ Justice, Freedom and Security’ of the European Commission’s Report on Ukraine’s progress within the European Union Enlargement Package in 2024