Ukraine's National Bar: Reform, Renewal, and Independence

[Music]

 

Jack Capizzi:  Welcome to today’s Federalist Society virtual event. Today, January 26, 2023, we are excited to present “Ukraine’s National Bar: Reform, Renewal, and Independence.” My name is Jack Capizzi, and I’m an assistant director of practice groups at The Federalist Society. As always, please note that all expressions of opinion are those of the experts on today’s call.

 

Today, we are delighted to be joined by Dr. George Bogden and Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy, who is joining us today from Kiev. After our speakers have given their remarks, we will turn to you, the audience, for questions. If you do have a question at any time during the program, please type it into the Q&A feature at the bottom of your screen, and we will handle them as we can towards the end of today’s program. With that, thank you all for being with us. George, the floor is yours.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Thank you so much, Jack. As Jack mentioned, I’m a member of The Federalist Society and a Kennan Fellow at the Kennan Institute. I’m just delighted to be here today, and I’d like to thank the International and National Security Law Practice Group for hosting this event. I have the pleasure of interviewing my good friend Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy, Vice President of the Ukrainian National Bar, this morning regarding a topic we think will be of interest to the members. That’s the development of Ukraine’s National Bar.

 

Before we begin, I’d just like to give everyone a little bit of information about Valentyn. He’s a managing partner at GOLAW and an attorney at law. His areas of expertise are focused on litigation and dispute resolution, bankruptcy, debt restructuring, as well as working with nonperforming loans. Valentyn has also been serving as vice president of the Council of Europe’s Committee on Experts On the Protection of Lawyers since April of last year. In 2019, Valentyn was elected as the head of the supervisory board for Ukrhydroenergo. In 2017, Valentyn was awarded the title of Honored Lawyer of Ukraine, and he has also obtained a doctor of philosophy in administrative law and process, financial law, and informational law before completing special programs in corporate governance at Harvard Business School.

 

So I’d like to thank everyone for joining us. I think we’re going to jump right in in the hope that we have time for open Q&A at the end. Just to be totally transparent, I’m going to be noting down questions as they come in and presenting them to Valentyn once we finish our initial set of questions. So let me see here. I think what I’ll start with, Valentyn, is if you could tell us a little bit about what practicing law in Ukraine was like before it became independent and what role professional organizations played in that system.

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  Thank you, Jack. Thank you, George. First, I would like to thank The Federalist Society for this invitation to discuss the National Bar’s many successes in the recent years. It means a great deal to be joining this venerable organization for this kind of exchange. And I’m grateful for the opportunity to do so.

 

President Reagan said, “Freedom is a fragile thing, and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance. It must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation.” I think this quote captures the essence of the story behind Ukrainian National Bar Association. We are living evidence of the realities of President Reagan’s insights actually.

 

So to get to your question, I would say that Ukraine has been on the path towards greater reform for many years. The prior system created by Soviet Union was characterized by inaccessibility actually. There was a lack of availability of legal resource for people who needed it. It was a legal system that, because of the centrally planned economy, was largely an administrative system with tens of thousands of internal regulations, many of which were not published.

 

Even when they were published, they are done so in a limited fashion and are not generally available. For example, lawyers could make a list of laws relevant to a case by referring to legislations that pertained to it. It could take a year to find the text of less than the majority of them. It was an undoubtedly frustrating experience just to gain access to rules that were certainly relevant to clients and any foreign investment businessmen who would be involved in commercial transactions in the formal USSR.

 

So that is where things begun actually. We are coming from that context. Thirty years is actually a short period to jump from such a system to radical transparency. Professional organizations in USSR echoed the realities of the legal system in general. They were controlled by state, riven with mistrust and often acted arbitrarily.

 

To the extent they thought to help litigants, they made it harder for them to hold their advocates accountable in instances in which they underperformed. However, in some satellite republics like Ukraine, the bar hardened in the times of confrontation with the totalitarian regime. The struggle peaked in the late 80s as a response against pressure of the state of the bar. That’s where we began.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  That’s fascinating, Valentyn. I guess I have to ask now, would you tell us a little bit about the evolution that took place that got us where we are today?

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  Of course. Of course. Since 1991, the bar went through three major stages, and each new stage was actually marked by amendments to pertinent legislation and the constitution. Fortunately, every time, the bar succeeded in gaining more and more independence, and those brought us closer to European standards of the legal profession. In 1992, the first post-Soviet law—the name of this law was just law on the bar—ensured transition of the bar from being under complete control of the state towards so-called quasi self-governance.

 

Only 20 years later, on July 5, 2012, our parliament adopted the law of Ukraine on the bar at practice of law. This law provided for incorporation of the first independent professional organization of advocates, Ukrainian National Bar Association. It was a single membership. Thus, the Ukrainian bar now had to operate under the model of true self-governance. And just for your information, today, we have more than 70,000 members in our organization. This is huge, a large organization, and it’s quite impressive number.

 

The Bar of Ukraine is grateful to the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, which adopted resolution back in 1995 recommending Ukraine as a state to establish an independent professional organization of lawyers which later became one of the conditions actually for the subsequent conclusion of the European Union and Ukraine Association agreement. And it’s difficult to say—and actually, it’s hard to understand—that it took 17 years to implement this parliamentary assembly resolution in relation to the bar.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Right. And so I want to dig a little bit deeper on that last point that you made because it’s difficult for those of us outside of the country and not part of this system to understand what prompted the reform that really brought the bar to where it is today, which is this kind of -- as you mentioned a kind of model in some ways. So would you tell us a little bit about that final step?

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  Well, you know, George, it’s an interesting story. Ukraine is currently an EU member candidate and a party to the EU Eastern Partnership Foreign Policy Initiative, operating with the EU on the basis of their 2015 association agreement. This agreement, in terms of its scope, is the largest international legal document in the history of Ukraine and also largest international agreement with a third party ever concluded by the European Union. These are great milestones for the foreign policy of our country.

 

But their attunements required time, and of course, most importantly, the persistent efforts of politicians, diplomats, and of course our advocates. In short, the bar emerged as a part of the process to reform required to join the EU. The success of the bar, we might say, is an example of lawyers paving the way to independence of their professional community.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Thanks. I want to push you a little bit on this point because I noticed that the law on the bar was passed when Viktor Yanukovych was president of Ukraine. And I want to ask how did that happen? I’m asking specifically because he doesn’t have the best reputation in America. I’m recalling when we saw headlines about the ostriches in his private zoo and the solid gold faucets on his estate when he was overthrown. And I just wonder if you can walk us through how that coincidence of timing took place.

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  Yes. It’s complicated, but at the same time funny question because former Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, is not only not popular in Ukraine; he’s the worst person we can imagine in our recent political history. And he was pro-Russian president, and of course, it reminds me of another quote by American Revolutionary War General William Prescott, who said, emphatically actually, “An obstacle is often a stepping stone.” With regard to the Ukrainian bar and Ukraine, I think that that turned out to be the case, actually.

 

And Yanukovych was, of course, a president who did not prioritize the rule of law at all, let’s say. However, he was stuck with the pre-existing legal on-ramp to the EU. And he had no choice. Yanukovych and his advisors had to decide what to do as deadlines approached. Actually, the government of Ukraine had to show some progress.

 

To do so, one year, they just chose to reform the National Bar Association. They decided it’s not a big deal for them. But for National Bar Association, it was a huge milestone and great chance. That is how the process got rolling. It was a somewhat unexpected change but an important one. Incorporation of the National Bar Association satisfied one of the preconditions for the future conclusion of the association agreement, namely establishment of a professional bar association and protecting the status of the legal profession by law actually.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Okay. Well, that fills out the picture, I think, on that—that interesting side of the story. So now let’s dig in a little bit to the question of how radical the change was that took place because we have a picture of what happened before. We have the stages in our mind, and we know the political realities that brought it to bear. So would you describe a little bit how radical that change was—what a departure in terms of that took place?

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  Yeah. It was quite radical. The current law on the bar departed actually from old concept completely. The powers of the bar are not delegated by state anymore as in preceding years. Instead, bar association derives its power directly from the constitution and the special law regulating its activity. For example, such as self-governance was imposed. Managing access to the legal profession, we do it by ourselves. We resolve issues of disciplinary liability of lawyers.

 

We maintain and keep a unified register of advocates of Ukraine, etc. In addition to the core law on the profession, the rules and regulation regarding the bar are set by advocates themselves also. This includes very important document, “Rules of Professional Conduct,” also admission requirements. Also, we issue the clarification of the law about bar and practice of law. It is fundamentally different from the preceding stage of the bar development between 1992 and 2012. Of course, it’s quite different. It’s completely new model.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Interesting. And so, who would you say were the primary parties responsible for the reform process?

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  Well, George, first let’s talk about the broad strokes or the highest level, let’s say. The 2012 law of Ukraine on the bar and practice of law was implementing the recommendations of both the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe and also the Venice Commission. Venice Commission is a special body in the Council of Europe which was created specially to promote democracy through the law—through the rule of law.

 

And this Venice Commission works like an expert body. They review the documents. They review the draft of the law. And after that, they give their position. Are they okay with this law? Or they have some maybe thoughts different from the text.

 

Those bodies took into account the best European practices of bar organization and European standards actually of bar self-government. They recommended that the Ukrainian National Bar Association became the first and only all-Ukrainian professional organization with mandatory membership for all advocates in Ukraine.

 

Here, I just want to make very small remark for our American colleagues. It’s important to understand that, in Europe, we have completely different model of organization of the bar. It’s very different from American one. I would not say it’s better or it’s not good. It’s just different. And in Ukraine, we have this structure where prosecutors, they just work for the state. They are not members of any bar. They’re just prosecutors. It’s a separate profession.

 

Judges also are completely independent, and they are state servants. But they independently act as a third power in the country. And advocates, National Bar Associations, acting completely separately as independent bodies protecting human rights, protecting people, providing legal support to everyone who needs it. That’s important clarifications. That’s why we need this mandatory membership because in Ukraine and many, many other European countries, we have exclusive right to represent people in the court. So only members of the bar can represent people in the court. And these advocates will be under the power of the special legislation regulation, including code of conduct.

 

Also, we also have to talk about what Ukraine parliament actually did. They accomplished a truly landmark contribution to the development of Ukraine as a state governed by law. This important achievement actually turns the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens into real opportunities and provides a mechanism for their protection, primarily from the encroachment by state. Adoption of key European standards of advocacy independence and self-governance into the national law paved the way towards integration of Ukrainian National Bar with the European professional community.

 

The new system of representation and management assumes that only advocates actually participate therein. Advocates themselves establish the rules of their institutional functioning and enjoy legal guarantees and protection against interference of state authorities. It was not always like this. Actually, we have this situation only after 2012, when we actually received brand new law, which was the European integration law as I mentioned before.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Right. And so this, I think, brings me to my next question, which is a bit about the nitty-gritty. And I’d like to know—and I think our members would be interested in knowing—what Ukrainian lawyers on the ground did to advance this process.

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  Actually, it’s true the burden of practical implementation of those recommendations of the parliamentary assembly of Council of Europe was completely on our shoulders. We have created the new bar from scratch actually, fulfilling not only the requirements of the law but also Ukrainian’s international obligations. We make every effort to develop it, as we understood that self-governance of the profession on the basis of the European -- of the best European practices guarantees advocates’ independence and high level of professional standard.

 

Advocate self-government is currently developed as a balance system of national scale where strong regional bodies are kept in check by the national bar. The democratic nature of the system requires that all officers within the advocate self-government are elected and bear term limits. This is very important.

 

The advocates’ exclusive right means that Ukrainian bar enjoys the same status in the justice system as in other European countries. At the same time, Ukraine is far ahead of many Eastern European countries and also countries from -- post-Soviet countries in terms of this reform actually. This innovation introduced by the recent changes to the constitution aimed primarily at effective protection of citizens’ rights and interests, of course. But to our dismay, we now observe attempts to reverse it in some ways. But it’s not an object of today’s conversation. We can talk about this maybe next time.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Right. I guess what I would like to know is -- everyone’s cognizant of the present circumstances in Ukraine, and our heart goes out to those who are fighting on behalf of their country. And I ask, during this period of war fighting, what is being done to ensure the longevity of this institution, the one we’ve been discussing?

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  Yeah. The war effort is primarily aimed at ensuring the future of Ukraine’s independence, of course. It is institutions like the bar that are at stake. They would wither and absolutely—that’s for sure—disappear under Russian rule. So, for the time being, the recommendations from the Council of Europe and the United Nations’ basic principles on the role of lawyers stipulate that all legislation regulating the bar as an institution cannot be amended without notice and consultations with the professional organization.

 

Unfortunately, these principles are not always followed in Ukraine. And some legislative amendments are accepted without consultation with UNBA. It actually was more before than now. Now the situation is a little bit better, but still.

 

The current law on the bar implements the European standards by providing for ability for foreign lawyers to practice in Ukraine. It’s new, and since 2012, the national legislation allowed for the integration of professional lawyers from different states into Ukrainian bar actually. The purpose of such novelty was to create an opportunity for foreign investors to seek legal advice in Ukraine not only from local lawyers but also from lawyers of their own state. In strategic sense, it was meant to stimulate foreign business to start projects in Ukraine. As such, businesses were granted improved opportunities for legal defense. The bar is currently the most stable institution within the justice system in Ukraine. That’s also very important to know.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Very interesting. And I really appreciate your bringing up that recent change and placing it for our listeners in the strategic terms that I think it was conceived. And that kind of brings me to my next question, which really pertains to the leadership’s strategic objectives of the bar. As a member of the leadership, how do you conceive of those?

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  All these years, we have been working person [sic] to the same edition of the core law. This allowed us to accomplish the below strategic objectives: to build a self-governing, independent, professional advocacy organization with a single compulsory membership, which is really strong and big deal; to ensure the unimpeded exercise of legal practice following the principles of the rule of law, legality, independence, confidentiality, and avoidance of conflict of interest, of course; to establish a list of professional rights and guarantees—real guarantees—that allowed defenders to work safely, professionally and effectively.

 

The fact that this law has not undergone fundamental changes since 2012, despite a serious risk of politically motivated amendments, proves an important rule. The stability of legislation is a decisive factor, actually, in the development of effective institutions. The law on the bar enabled creation of a stable institution at national and regional level, executive bodies, bar councils, qualification and disciplinary commissions of the bar, and higher bodies on the national level, Bar Council of Ukraine, and higher qualification of different commission of the bar of Ukraine.

 

A few years ago, before the outbreak of the war, the Bar Council of Ukraine approved our UNBA 2025 strategy, which defines priority development objectives and the actions for the next four years. Also, our President Zelensky, before the war, adopted the strategy about development of the judiciary and constitutional justice in Ukraine to 2023. Maybe this document, it’s not relevant anymore because of war, because of what happened actually.

 

But Ukrainian National Bar Association worked closely just to follow the vision how our judiciary in Ukraine should be reformed. And, of course, we prepared a package of proposals to the section plan, sufficiently specific/professional. This is a roadmap that is coordinated, agreed, and should be finalized and implemented in the coming years despite of the war.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Very interesting to see that your ambitions for making the bar better are continuing despite circumstances. In that regard, I’d like to ask a little bit about the principle of self-government, which seems to be central to this change that took place. And I’d like to ask whether that’s taking root in the sense that traditions of the past are changing or a new generation of lawyers might be celebrating that idea in new ways. How would you comment on that?

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  Yes, absolutely. In our case, the principle of self-governance provides that the powers regarding the bar self-government are carried out by the bar bodies. All of them are elected by advocates from among practicing advocates, seasoned professionals trusted by professional communities of the region, trusted by the congress as the highest body of advocates of self-government. This system is calibrated, built on the principle of checks and balances and is absolutely transparent and accountable.

 

Regional conferences and national congress provide an opportunity for a true assessment of the state of affairs in the bar and restaffing bodies of bar self-government actually. As of lately, more and more younger advocates get elected because it’s our policy. We motivate young professionals to be involved in our self-governance just to be able to teach them to transfer our traditions to younger generation. New generation is increasingly interested in bar affairs and ready to assume responsibility before thousands of colleagues on a voluntary basis.

 

And that is very important—and actually, for me, it's a great pleasure to share this information with you. UNBA established advisory bodies. It’s our blood. It’s what we do every day. It’s a committee which provide expert and analytical support in key areas of advocacy, in key areas of practicing the law, create platform for professional discussion, actively participate in the legislation process, having a constant dialogue with the relevant committees of our parliament. This is very, very important.

 

For the last maybe three years, together with the parliament, we actually revised more than 200 drafts of different laws, different legislation in different areas of our Ukrainian life. So we help to make Ukrainian legislation better. We pay our time. We invest our knowledge and our skills helping our members of the parliament to do their job better.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Great, great. And I guess as a kind of tail end of that question, has the bar gone through any kind of dispassionate self-analysis and received feedback from its members about perception of its governance processes and how they’re changing? And what would you give our listeners in terms of evidence of that?

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  Yeah. In 2018, it was a national survey. And this national survey showed that bar self-government makes decisions, enjoys a high level of trust of its constituents. The national survey showed support for the current model of advocacy and high appreciation of the quality of services provided by advocates on the ground and nationwide.

 

The adaptation of key European standards to the bar independence and self-governance to the national court of law has paved the way for us to integrate into the European professional community, which is very important for us. We deeply value the international exchange as they provide us with means to improve. Ukrainian National Bar Association has started cooperation with many European bars—actually, all of them—also United Kingdom Bar Council of England and Wales as well as Law Society of England and Wales and also many, many other bars around the globe.

 

Ukrainian National Bar Association is also party of very important European document. It’s a memorandum between European bars under umbrella of CCBE. It’s a European organization which unites all bars of the European Union. And this memorandum’s name is “Memorandum on Mutual Recognition of Lawyers Cross-Border Continuing Professional Development.” This allows Ukrainian advocates to partake in a single European space of professional education formed by the memorandum and covering 45 states of European Union.

 

We also maintain systematic contact with the major international organizations such as International Bar Association, which currently brings together more than 200 associations of lawyers from around the world. And thanks to this powerful partnership, we have an opportunity to attract global attention to our problems if we have problems or to our success if we have success. We have success, so it’s very important for us to show it, to demonstrate it.

 

We also discuss with our international colleagues problems connected with access to justice and other issues in Ukraine. Also, we cooperate with many organizations of lawyers, of [inaudible 00:31:34] who actually do a lot to protect human rights, professional rights of advocates, etc. It’s very important, and we do a great job in this area, actually, at the international level.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Well, thank you so much for that. That, I think, gives us all a sense of what the bar is doing to analyze its own progress. And now I’d like to ask just a little bit about the disciplinary process that you outlined before and any challenges that you see in implementing that process in the environment of change that brought about the bar as it exists today. Do old habits die hard? How do you emphasize transition and transformation during that intermediate period? We’d love any comments you have on that.

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  Yeah. Of course. We look at this challenge primarily through the lens of promoting the professional development for our members. We responsibly perceive this mission, invest in the development of the training system and raising standards and expand the choice of areas for professional growth, taking into account exclusive audience rights. This strategy is non-alternative.

 

The legal profession involves constant learning process. So raising the professional level is the responsibility of every and each advocate in Ukraine. The Bar Council of Ukraine decided to create a single online platform for raising the professional level of advocates, and we even created a special organization, which 100 percent belongs to the bar. It's UNBA Higher School for Advocates. This organization, they’re doing a great job. They conduct thousands of events every year. And 80 percent of those events are free of charge.

 

So our colleagues have great possibility to access the best educational products available in the Ukrainian market. Single electronic resource contains data about all accredited events, which we put on the platform. Advocates may access the online calendar for easy search of their desired event or topic or field of law. And, of course, as far as was created for the money of advocates, only authenticated advocates has the opportunity to register online for those events and learn from this platform.

 

The bar also has exclusive powers to adopt—according to the law—the rules of professional conduct and consider disciplinary complaints against the advocates. So we do it by ourselves. We accept to the profession, and we also do disbarment procedures.

 

The rules of professional conduct get approved by the congress of advocates. This is the highest body of advocate self-government. And they are mandatory for all advocates in Ukraine. All advocates have to follow those rules. In drafting the rules, we relied on international standards, of course, best practices including CCBE code of conduct for European lawyers. And this code of conduct which we have today is the most modern, most advanced. And we even regulated such sensitive and absolutely necessary things like behavior of the lawyers in the social media, internet issues, etc., which is vastly growing, developing, changing. But we actually also change our regulation according to the situation.

 

The legislation also allows an advocate with -- it’s important to know that our legislation, it’s not like in U.S., to my knowledge. I may be wrong. But in many European countries, if you’re disbarred, you’re disbarred forever. For example, in Germany, that’s one lifetime opportunity to be a lawyer, and if you lose it, it’s forever.

 

In Ukraine -- I don’t know, again, if it’s good or bad. In Ukraine, the legislation allows an advocate with suspended or terminated right to the practice to appeal this decision actually and after two years—after two years—again, to go through the qualification exam and return to the practice of law. But it’s very important to know that every advocate can appeal an unfavorable decision for him in the disciplinary cases to our highest qualification discipline commission of the bar or alternatively to his choice to the court of law. Having those instruments, our law actually gives an advocate tools to defend their professional honor and establish the safeguards, prevent disciplinary procedures from being used to prosecute advocates for personal reasons or for their professional activities. This is our additional professional guarantees, which is very important to know. And it works perfectly fine.

 

We even have a special committee in national bar association—committee on protection of lawyers—because we need it. And every year we’re reporting -- as I said, we’re a very transparent organization. On our website, you can find all reports about our activity. Every year we issue the report. And we also issue reports of the problematic issues because those problematic issues help us to get better, to be better, to improve.

 

And one of the very important issues which we’re dealing with is the protection of our advocates’ rights because if our rights are violated, it means that our clients’ rights are violated. And it’s not about us. It’s, of course, about people, about our clients, about humans whose rights should not be violated by state. And that’s why we’re preparing those reports and we’re making public the situation about those violations. We attract as much attention on it as possible, not only internally but also from outside of the Ukraine. And it helps. Transparency helps. It helps to improve, helps to control illegal actions from third parties, and helps to prevent from doing these violations in the future.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Great, great. Well, we actually have a couple of questions from the audience. Before we get there, though, I’m just going to ask one final one, and that’s just because I’m intrigued by what seems to be a uniquely Ukrainian experience that you’re outlining in the sense that you produced the national bar, as you say, from scratch. And so, I’m sure other countries are looking for that kind of progress toward a result like something that you’ve achieved. And I wonder if you’d discuss that just a bit before we head into the audience questions.

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  Yeah. Thanks. Actually, you know, corporations with professional community around the world, abroad I mean, has not became a one-sided process for us. We can confidently affirm that Ukrainian National Bar Association has something to share with colleagues from other countries. And we’re actually sharing right now.

 

We have successfully carried out projects that are of interest to foreign bar associations, and we are ready to share our practical experience of building the bar as an institution and share some of our projects as well. In particular, our digital product such as unified register of advocates, it’s not just a register; it’s a very powerful platform which can be used not only by advocates, not only by organizations, by national bar, but also integrated with other systems like online electronic justice platforms for example. It’s our unique software which we developed by ourselves, and it's great.

 

We also are very proud in our electronic ledger of advocates, which this united register of advocates actually provides. And our colleagues electronically, digitally can issue electronic warrant. It’s like power of attorney which gives you power to represent people. So we should not print it. We just generate it online, and it’s accepted by courts and by other organizations.

 

We also are very proud about our unique software for continuous professional education. It’s a unique system, and this system garnered very much of interest from our colleagues from other bar associations in Europe. And that’s not only in Europe. For example, our Canadian colleagues asked us, and French colleagues asked us to sell them this software, but we are not ready to sell it because it was not developed for sale. But we will be happy to share our experience, of course, with them.

 

Our current law vests the Bar Council of Ukraine as the highest body of advocate self-government. And according to this status, we have a task based on the law to maintain the Unified Register of Advocates of Ukraine. And since 2013, such an electronic register is available at the UNBA website, as I mentioned before. This is an open official database that anyone with internet access can use, but also our colleagues, as I said, can use internal huge, amazing possibilities inside the system.

 

As I said, each advocate listed in our register has its own personal online account, and with the help of this service one, has a number of opportunities like warrant generation, as I said, and integration with electronic justice platform. So that’s just a short list, but I want to save time. And maybe we can go to the questions.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Yes. What I’ll do is I’ll go right from the feed and just take the questions as they’ve come in. So the first one is from Dr. Will Pomeranz of the Kennan Institute. He mentions, “You discussed the distinct career paths for lawyers in Ukraine. Members of the advokatura are the most experienced legal practitioners. So do advocates become prosecutors, judges, or pursue government service?” And I think that’s the end of the question. So any comments on that?

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  Is my understanding correct? The question was about if advocates can become the prosecutors. Am I right or not?

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Yes, it seems that members of the advokatura are the most experienced legal practitioners. So do advocates become prosecutors, judges, or pursue government service?

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  Yes. Since 2014, when Ukraine had—you remember—this very important revolution when we got rid, finally, from Yanukovych, from this pro-Russian president, and when the new president, Koreshchenko, was elected, a lot of reforms started, including judicial reform. And during those reforms members of the advokatura, of the bar, actually became the main source for new judges and for the prosecutor of the seats, etc., etc. Yes, we were the source of excellent people for those organizations because before, it was not allowed for advocates to participate in many, many, many positions.

 

But now the situation is completely changed. For example, our former colleague, Andriy Kostin, now is the prosecutor general of Ukraine. But he was a member of Odessa city bar. He was a deputy head of Odessa regional bar association actually. So we’re very proud that people like him are getting these high positions.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Great, great. Now we have a couple of questions from Rod Candelaria (sp). I’m going to propose those questions in the order that they came in. The first is “In areas controlled by Russia since 2014, are the lawyers ‘in Russia’s pocket,’ i.e. pro-Russian? If so, why? And if not, why can’t they -- sorry -- what can they do for Ukrainian freedom? What are the risks?”

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  Okay. If we’re talking about territories which are not under Ukrainian control, I cannot comment anything because I have no -- any information what’s really happening in those black areas actually. I think after we will liberate them, then we will see what actually happened there. But now I cannot actually comment there.

 

For example, all lawyers who were registered on those territories are in our register. So we consider them as our lawyers. And we have no right to consider them otherwise. So they are our colleagues.

 

And if a second part of your question is what you can do to help to build better Ukrainian freedom, as I understood differently -- if I understood correctly. I think that international legal community now can support Ukraine in general. Please talk with your clients. Please talk with politicians. Please convince them to support Ukraine because Ukraine is now fighting for democracy, actually, for the values we share. And today, we’re in the frontline of this fight, which actually the world had with the very bad evil from Russia.

 

So I think that every person can contribute, even by normal conversation, even just by talking with your friends just to support what Ukraine do protecting us. We can protect ourself, but we need support of international community—all kinds of support, not only financial, military, but also emotional support. It’s also very important for us because now we are the victims. And we are fighting, so we need this support.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  We actually have a question from an anonymous attendee, and they ask, “Can you please talk about the ways the Ukrainian bar tackles corruption within the Ukrainian court system and specifically among judges? Are there legal mechanisms in place that oversee the judges?”

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  That’s actually a great question, and I’m really happy to answer this question. Maybe, George, you remember we already discussed this once that Ukraine used to be on an information-space-like country with the highest level of corruption, etc. But it’s not the case anymore already since 2015. Ukraine launched, and it’s proved to be very successful, super powerful, and very interesting anti-corruption compliance system, which does not exist in any other country of the world.

 

And we needed this tough system, and it’s proved its effectiveness, as I said, because we already have statistics. How many judges already went to the jail for taking bribes? But it’s not the case -- it’s not massive at all. Now it’s completely different because judicial reforms started in 2015, and still, it was in pause for a while for different political reasons because of change of political elites. But now, Ukrainian society has huge demand for the finalization of this judicial reform.

 

And just two weeks ago, we actually elected supreme council of justice. These are the official body in the system of the court who is responsible for disciplinary procedures against judges, which is very important to make them account for all their wrongdoings. And I cannot say that we have this massive problem with that now. No, not at all. We made huge progress fighting corruption with all these anti-corruption compliance institutions, not only judges but also oligarchs, members of the parliament, ministers, representatives of the government, just go to jail for corruption.

 

So this is very important. That is what actually Ukrainian people wanted. And that’s what international society wanted from Ukraine helping Ukraine. So I’m happy to say that we have a huge progress there, and it was even acknowledged by Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, in her speech when European Union adopted the decision to grant us candidacy status because without this progress, even having the war in Ukraine, it would never be reality. But we did it, and of course, we have a lot to do in the future. But we work hard and quite successfully.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Thank you. So we have a little bit of overlap over some questions, so I apologize if I kind of think we’ve covered the topic you’re raising. But we have a great question from David Eggleston, which is, “Can Ukrainian Bar Association seek the disbarment of prosecutors for misconduct, and does this create a conflict with Ukrainian government?”

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  If prosecutor behave in any way somehow wrong, we have very effective mechanism in place. There is a disciplinary commission against prosecutors, and it’s interesting fact that National Bar Association appoints one representative into this commission actually. So we’re involved directly in the process of disciplinary proceedings against prosecutors. And it works very well, so it’s also new.

 

We didn’t have it before 2012/2013. But now it works like this, and we’re happy. Actually, our new prosecutor general now is very tough, and I think that we will see more and more progress in the area of prosecutor office in Ukraine. They’re doing a great job on international level now they’re responsible for collecting of evidences of war. They now communicate it on a daily basis with the International Criminal Court, etc., other institutions like this. So I think everything will be even better.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Great. We have another question from Rod Candelaria. “What, perhaps, are the subtle differences between the terms advocate and lawyer in the Ukrainian context? Do advocates and only advocates draft contracts, wills, trusts, etc.?”

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  No. The difference is very easy to explain. Lawyer is a person with a diploma from the university—that he has degree, law degree. He is a lawyer. But he never can practice law. He never can use it. He became a lawyer when he’s granted this diploma of law degree.

 

After that, you have to choose in Ukraine which profession you want to do. You want to be in-house lawyer? Please. No procedures, no special procedure. You just go to the company, and you work exclusively inside of the company as an in-house lawyer. You can consult only this particular company which you work for.

 

If you want to become an advocate, you need to pass through the bar exam. When you pass the bar exam, then you became an advocate. We put you into the register of advocates. And you’re granted a lot of special rights and obligations according to the law about bar and practice of law. And advocates in Ukraine provide all types of legal support, including consulting, representation to the court, criminal cause, commercial cause, everything—no limitation. So this is legal profession actually. Advocates represent legal profession actually.

 

But if a person who graduated from the university also wants to go to the prosecution office, they just go there, and it’s the easiest way to become a prosecutor. Go through some commission in the prosecutor office, and they just can accept that. But it’s not acceptation to the bar as in U.S., as I said in my speech. It’s completely different.

 

If a person wants to be a judge, it’s very complicated process. They need to go through the special procedures, special exams, special selection process because they need to prove that they have no problems with their reputation, etc., etc. By the way, in Ukraine, we don’t have elected judges. All judges go through the similar procedure, and in the end of the day, they are appointed. It’s a ceremony by signature of the president, but the president has no influence on this process actually. It’s a specially designed, independent process of selection.

 

Actually, in this process, only judges mostly participate. So existing judges actually accept new judges. And also, it’s a very interesting process, as I said, but it’s quite complicated. So the difference between lawyer and advocates, we are members of the bar and they are just people with a legal education.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Very good. I want to jump to a question that’s kind of responding to some of the headlines that have been coming out. It comes from Bruce Marks. He says, “I have been involved in representing Ukrainian clients since 2003. The media reports that several high-ranking officials have been dismissed by Zelensky for corruption. At the same time, it does not appear Ukraine has recovered moneys allegedly stolen by Yanukovych. What is the prognosis?”

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  That’s true. Just a few days ago, we saw major dismissal process in our current government and political party led by Zelensky actually. That is a result, as I said, of complete intolerance to the corruption. If something just happened, we should not prove it. If the person just decided to go to Thailand—like today, one MP who has to be in the parliament but now he’s in Thailand having fun -- he just resigned.

 

That’s what really happened in Ukraine. We could not imagine such development a few years ago. No. And if we’re talking about money, which we need to, let’s say, collect money was stolen from Ukrainians, that’s true -- by people like Yanukovych. Because we are lawyers, we have to be very precise. This job, actually, on its way. And as far as I know again our prosecutorial office welcome these issues.

 

It’s not the issue of the bar, so I cannot -- I don’t know details. I cannot comment. But what I really need to say -- that our country now work hard with our international partners to improve cooperation in the legal area to make easier cooperation in the questions like this because before, we have difficulties with the acknowledgment of our court rulings. Even if we have a ruling of the court in the favor of someone in Ukraine, we cannot enforce it in U.S. That’s for sure. And in many European countries, you need to go to the local court to acknowledge a decision, ruling of the Ukrainian court, and vice versa. It’s very complicated, but now we work how to make it simpler, how to make it faster, and how to push it. Everything’s developing. Everything’s getting better.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Thank you. I think we have time for a few more questions, so what I’m going to do is put two questions together, one from Joe Burns and one from Michelle Kundmueller -- I hope I’m pronouncing that correctly. We’ll start with Joe’s question.

 

He says, “Like so many Americans, I have been inspired by the courage of the Ukrainian people and President Zelensky over the past year. What can we do as American lawyers and members of The Federalist Society to help you, your organization, and the Ukrainian people?”

 

And Michelle asks a similar question. “Are there good ways for American attorneys, especially those without government connections, to put their skills at the service of Ukraine’s independence? Can we support your bar in supporting your nation’s democracy? Our skillset doesn’t transfer the same way that, say, a doctor’s does. So is there something particularly useful that members of the U.S. bar can do to help?”

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  It’s very broad question. And it can take maybe half an hour answering this because we need so many things. But I would focus on very specific. Recently, maybe four months ago, I met president of American Bar Association in Miami at the ABA conference. And I discussed with her a few very important things for us.

 

I think that Ukrainian advocates, Ukrainian legal society in general—not only advocates but members of our offices who are not advocates but legal staff, our colleagues, members of their families—what we really need now is some program led by international professionals about mental health because now it's very, very difficult for us to leave here and to resist this continuous, nonstop stress and pressure which we have because of the war. This is physical demand. We need it. And we don’t need doctors.

 

We need professionals who can help us in a professional way to understand better how we need to behave, how we need to work, how we can combine war with the practice of law because we never stopped practicing law during the war actually. We’ve always been provided our constitutional obligation. We provided protection to everyone who needed it in every region. We provided legal aid.

 

We provided defense to the prisoners of war, by the way, because Ukraine is a country with a rule of law. So we provide defense to every person who need it. Of course, it was not supported by society. People said, “Okay, how these lawyers can protect Russians? Russians are killing our people, and they defend those Russians.” We are not defending their crimes. We’re just defending their human rights. Every human being has rights, and they have rights, too. Because if we would not provide them legal representations in the court of law, in the future, they can claim that their rights were violated and they were illegally put into the jail or something like this. So we need to observe human rights in Ukraine even during the war. And we do these things.

 

But we need some training or some program which will teach us how to react, how to reflect, how to communicate, how to live in peace with yourself and with all this pressure as a professional, not as a human being. We are human beings still. And another issue, as I already said -- so think about that. If you have good recommendations or maybe you can gather some group of people who can help with that, we will be very grateful if we can do it on the national level. It’s very easy.

 

But another thing, maybe if you work in the field of international law, if you have any ideas how to help Ukraine as a state -- it’s not to the Ukrainian National Bar Association because our obligation is to provide legal support. That’s our constitutional aim. And the aim of the prosecutor is to collect evidences of crime, go to the court, accuse people. And that’s their role. Our role is to protect, to defend. And the role of the state is to create this atmosphere, this mechanism to put all these, let’s say, procedures together.

 

What I mean: our state now looking for the best legal solution for future, let’s say, tribunal, I don’t know, court. Let’s call it whatever you call it. But what we really need, we need to make those who did those atrocities accountable in the future, yes. And second, we need to know, and we need to find the mechanism how we can compensate all these huge damage, commercial damage which we suffer. A lot of international companies, a lot of people just suffered, lost their property. We don’t have, now, effective legal mechanism which will provide the result, the real result.

 

So brilliant legal minds, if you have great ideas, you are very welcome. I will be really happy to be in contact with you. Please connect me, direct me in LinkedIn. If you have any ideas, it will be great. I can connect you with right people. And I can recommend you to participate in specific working group, etc., etc. That’s the practical help which you can provide.

 

Dr. George Bogden:  Well, that brings up right up to the hour. Valentyn, I have to thank you again for joining us from Kiev during this very difficult time. I really hope that you stay safe during bombing episodes like yesterday evening. And taking so much time out of your schedule is such an honor for us, and arranging all the backup batteries and things you need to do this kind of Zoom conversation, we really appreciate that.

 

I’d also like to thank The Federalist Society and the International and National Security Law Practice Group for making this happen. We are particularly indebted to the support of Matthew Heiman and Jack Capizzi. With that, I think I’ll bring the event to a conclusion and just thank all of our participants. So thank you so much.

 

Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy:  Thank you very much. It was a pleasure for me.

 

 

Jack Capizzi:  Thank you all for attending today. We always welcome listener feedback by email at [email protected]. Please keep an eye on your emails and our website for further announcements. And apart from that, thank you all for your time. We are adjourned.