Lawyer ≠ client. Why law prohibiting identification is protection of justice, not an attack on freedom of speech
Lawyer Oleksiy Shevchuk, spokesperson for the Ukrainian National Bar Association
The Ukrainian debate on “identifying lawyers with their clients” often boils down to emotional arguments. Some talk about a “threat to freedom of speech,” while others talk about real attacks and pressure on defense lawyers. This article breaks it all down: it explains what the new law actually entails; why it does not infringe on journalism; how it complies with European standards (in particular, the new Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Legal Profession); and why, in the end, citizens, the state, and honest media will benefit.
A problem that has been known for a long time, but for which there were no tools
For years, Ukrainian lawyers have been targeted simply because they are doing their job: defending unpopular suspects, taking on politically sensitive cases, and demanding that investigators comply with procedural rules. Public campaigns against lawyers — labeling them as “defenders of traitors/murderers/corrupt officials” — fueled waves of threats, attempts to disrupt court hearings, physical attacks, and reputational narratives of “guilty because he defends the guilty.”
This is not theory: according to the official report of the UNBA (Ukrainian and English versions), the number of documented cases of identification has been increasing every year: 13 in 2022, 21 in 2023, 28 in 2024, and already 32 in the first half of 2025 alone. The authors of the report emphasize that this is only the tip of the iceberg, as not all incidents are included in the statistics.
The consequence is obvious: when a defense attorney is intimidated, a person's right to a fair trial suffers. A lawyer is neither a “friend” nor an ‘enemy’ of the client; he is the guarantor of the procedure. His professional duty is to ensure that the case is heard in court, not on a Telegram channel; that the evidence is proper, not “emotionally convincing”; that the presumption of innocence works for everyone. By undermining the independence and safety of lawyers, we undermine justice.
What exactly has been adopted in Ukraine: briefly, accurately, without myths
On July 16–17, 2025, the Verkhovna Rada approved a law amending the Code of Administrative Offenses and the Criminal Code to provide real protection for the professional guarantees of lawyers. The new article of the Code of Administrative Offenses establishes administrative liability for publicly identifying a lawyer with a client. The definition of “identification” in the law is clear: any identification (association, linking) of a lawyer with the activities or actions of a client that creates a biased attitude towards the lawyer, indicates his or her “personal involvement,” affects his or her independent status, and/or exerts negative pressure during the performance of his or her activities. Cases will be heard by district/city courts; protocols will be drawn up by the heads of regional bar councils or authorized members. The penalty is a fine within the limits specified by the Code of Administrative Offenses (with an increase in case of recurrence).
The fact that the reform has been adopted is confirmed by public sources: official news from the judiciary and a statement from the Ukrainian National Bar Association. Both emphasize that this is the first realistic tool for accountability for dangerous identification, designed not to “shut people up” but to stop practices that threaten the safety of defenders and ultimately undermine citizens' right to defense.
Important: the law does not prohibit factual references such as “Lawyer X represents client Y in case Z.” The subject of liability is not the fact of representation, but the public equating of the lawyer with the actions of the client, which causes negative consequences (prejudice, pressure, etc.). This is a fundamental distinction: informing ≠ identifying.
Where criticism ends and “identification” begins
Freedom of speech is at the center of public debate. Some critics argue that the law “penalizes any public mention of a lawyer in the context of a client.” This interpretation is excessive and does not correspond to the text of the norm. The definition of “identification” directly refers to “prejudice,” “indication of personal involvement,” and other negative influences on independence or guarantees of activity—without these elements, there is no offense.
Therefore:
— Criticism of a lawyer (as a public figure), analysis of their procedural actions, and questions of ethics are possible and protected by freedom of expression, provided they do not contain fabrications or slander.
— Facts about who a lawyer represents are permissible.
— Identification = equating a lawyer with the actions of a client (labels such as “accomplice/accessory/traitor,” etc.), which leads to pressure, threats, and obstruction, is punishable.
This is a balanced approach: the law does not turn conscientious journalism into a “risk zone,” but it does draw a red line for hate speech and dangerous campaigns against lawyers.
Why the principle of “lawyer ≠ client” is the basis of a fair trial
A lawyer is not an evaluator of the moral qualities of the defendant, but a guarantor of the procedure. Just as a doctor saves the wounded regardless of their biography, so a lawyer ensures the right to defense regardless of public sympathy. If we allow lawyers to be equated with their clients, we will face an avalanche of problems:
— Chilling effect: lawyers will refuse to take on high-profile cases due to the threat of harassment.
— Deformation of the process: investigators will be given carte blanche to pass public judgments before the court; lawyers will be afraid to object, and the rights of the defense will be destroyed.
— Loss of trust: citizens will stop believing that court is a place where evidence is weighed, not likes and views.
That is why European legal thought has spent decades building up protections for the legal profession: independence, confidentiality, professional secrecy, protection from identification. And Ukraine has not only the right but also the obligation to bring these guarantees into practice.
European standard: the new Council of Europe Convention
In March 2025, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted the Convention on the Protection of the Legal Profession; on May 13, 2025, it was opened for signature at a session in Luxembourg. The purpose of the document is to strengthen the protection of lawyers and create a mechanism for monitoring its implementation.
The key provision for our topic is contained in Article 6(5): "The Parties shall ensure that lawyers do not suffer adverse consequences as a result of their identification with their clients or with the position of their clients. This article shall apply without prejudice to freedom of expression...". In other words, the prohibition of identification is explicitly enshrined as a European standard — and at the same time balanced with freedom of speech.
This position is also supported by the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), which explains that the aim of the Convention is to strengthen the rule of law, as attacks on the role of lawyers in Europe are increasing and the safety of the profession is a prerequisite for citizens' access to justice.
Thus, Ukrainian law is following the path already paved in Europe: to stop turning lawyers into “targets” by imposing narrow, proportionate liability for dangerous practices.
Responses to key myths
Myth 1. “This is an attack on journalism.”
No. The law does not restrict the right to report facts and criticize lawyers as public figures — if this is done in good faith. The line is drawn where slander and incitement begin, leading to negative consequences (prejudice, pressure, threats). This coincides with the European test of proportionality: freedom of speech is not absolute and may be restricted to protect the reputation and safety of others. The Council of Europe Convention explicitly emphasizes that the prohibition of identification applies without prejudice to freedom of expression — therefore, balance is built into the standard itself.
Myth 2. “Any mention of a lawyer alongside a client will be punished.”
Not true. In the new article of the Code of Administrative Offenses, the subject of liability is identification in the sense given in the law: association that creates bias or pressure and indicates personal involvement. The fact that “A defends B” is not punishable. What is punishable is the campaign “A = B” with consequences.
Myth 3. “They defend ‘bad’ lawyers.”
No. The law does not grant lawyers immunity from liability for their own offenses (criminal, disciplinary, ethical). It only refers to protection from the actions of others — clients or the crowd — when they are unfairly attributed to the lawyer. A lawyer is a procedural function, not an “evaluation of a client's lifestyle.”
Myth 4. “Ukraine is moving away from Europe.”
On the contrary. Ukrainian law harmonizes national practice with the Council of Europe Convention and the position of the European Bar. The explicit provision prohibiting identification in Article 6(5) of the Convention is the best response to those who call the idea “anti-European.”
How the mechanism will work in practice
Cases under the new article will be considered by district/city courts, and the protocol on administrative offenses will be drawn up by the heads of regional bar councils or authorized members. The sanction is a fine within the limits of the Code of Administrative Offenses; for repeat offenses, the fine is increased. At the same time, the procedure itself filters out trivial complaints: there must be evidence of bias/pressure/negative consequences specifically from identification. This is not a “ban on speaking,” but a targeted safeguard against dangerous campaigns.
Separately, the law clarifies the disposition of Article 397 of the Criminal Code (interference in the activities of a lawyer), detailing the forms of obstruction: from illegal obstruction of arrival at court or investigative bodies to other intentional actions that block the exercise of professional activities. Thus, the criminal norm becomes more practical for law enforcement agencies and courts.
Why is this important for journalists and society?
Honest journalism benefits when marginal rhetoric of “revenge” and slander decreases in the information space. Editors and authors who work with facts and evidence are not the target of this law. On the contrary, an adequate limit of responsibility increases trust in the media and helps separate investigation from hate speech.
Citizens benefit because the right to defense becomes more real. No one wants to find themselves in a situation where their lawyer is afraid to do their job because of “raids” on social media or groups of “moral inquisitors” outside the court. Strong defense is not about “impunity,” but about a fair trial and the examination of evidence in court, not in an information bubble.
The state wins because it introduces a European culture of responsibility for one's words, reduces the intensity of violent campaigns, and enhances the international reputation of justice.
A view from Europe: why this course is right
European institutions say outright: attacks on lawyers in Europe have increased, and therefore special guarantees are needed. The Convention is not a “symbolic declaration” but a solid legal instrument with a monitoring mechanism and periodic assessments of implementation. It is advisable for Ukraine to synchronize its internal practice with these standards — which is what the new law does.
Ukraine has publicly supported the course of implementing the Convention: relevant announcements by the UNBA and the Council of Europe set out the milestones — adoption (March 2025) and opening for signature (May 13, 2025, Luxembourg). This outline is important not only politically but also practically: it forms a common language with European partners on the protection of justice and freedom of speech at the same time.
Ethics and professional standards: what needs to change in communication practice
The law is a necessary but not the only answer. It is extremely important to update the professional practices of all parties involved.
For the media and opinion leaders:
— Avoid constructions that directly or indirectly equate a lawyer with a client (“lawyer of traitors,” “lawyer of murderers,” etc.).
— Clearly separate facts (who represents whom) from assessments, indicating the evidence for statements.
— Understand that “hot emotions” can backfire — not only legally, but also in terms of reputation.
For law enforcement agencies and courts:
— Consistently apply the updated Article 397 of the Criminal Code (interference in the activities of a lawyer).
— Explain to personnel the difference between criticism and identification.
For the legal profession:
— Promptly record incidents of identification (screenshots, witnesses, police reports) — the evidence base will be key in court.
— Maintain internal codes of communication so as not to undermine the reputation of the profession with your own words.
A separate note on the limits of criticism
Criticism of a lawyer is permissible. He can be wrong; his tactics can be controversial; his reputation can be tested by facts. All of this is normal for a democracy. What is not normal is when criticism turns into personal insinuations such as “he defends, therefore he shares in the crime,” “he works for the enemy,” “he should be punished like his client.” This is where the line between public interest and danger to justice is drawn.
Who will benefit from the new norm and how
— Ordinary people. When you or your loved ones need legal defense tomorrow, your lawyer should be able to work without fear. This directly depends on whether their profession is protected from harassment.
— Journalists. A clear line between criticism and dangerous rhetoric reduces the risks of the “boomerang effect” and increases trust in the media.
— The state. European integration is not only about laws “on paper,” but also about practices of respect for institutions. The protection of lawyers is a marker of the maturity of the legal system.
What else needs to be done: a brief roadmap for implementation
1) An explanatory campaign for the media and bloggers: simple explanations of where the line between informing and identifying lies; case studies.
2) Training for judges and police: how to qualify cases of identification; how to collect evidence; how to apply changes to Article 397 of the Criminal Code.
3) Internal protocols of the UNBA on evidence collection and communication in high-profile cases (quick instructions on “how to act” when a campaign is launched against a lawyer).
4) Monitoring and reporting: regular public reports (in Ukrainian and English) on incidents and court decisions; this will strengthen Ukraine's position in the dialogue with the EU and the Council of Europe.
Why signing the law is a logical and correct step
Freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy. But democracy cannot survive without fair trials, and fair trials are impossible without independent defense. Prohibiting the identification of lawyers with their clients does not restrict journalism; it restricts irresponsible aggression that destroys justice.
Ukrainian law:
— complies with European standards (Article 6(5) of the Council of Europe Convention);
— establishes proportional liability where actual damage occurs;
— strengthens institutional guarantees and trust in the courts — in wartime, this is no less important than on the front lines of information security.
The new administrative norm is not about “silence in the media.” It is about silence for the crowd that would like to judge louder than the court. And about the voice of the law, which must be heard when emotions are at their loudest.