Those who manage to adapt to the new legal reality will come out on top—from defending military personnel and reputations to working with AI, technology, and international compensation for damages caused by Russian aggression.

The Impact of 2025 on the Legal and Business Markets

In 2025, the market began to undergo a drastic restructuring. Both the legal and business sectors are responding to challenges as quickly as possible. As always, the legal market is among the first to react, since it is through the law that all the pain points of the economy and society are addressed.

A new major practice has emerged in the legal profession that fully corresponds to today’s realities: legal support and defense for military personnel. And this is certainly not a “social niche,” as some tried to portray it at the beginning. This is a new legal reality.

This involves comprehensive work: filing for and collecting compensation, supporting the rehabilitation of service members after injuries, obtaining combatant status, resolving disputes with government agencies, as well as filing international claims for damages against the aggressor country. These are not abstract or isolated issues, but rather daily, painstaking work—a legal practice that is in high demand and has significant potential for further development.

We are already seeing the first precedents of Ukrainian cases reaching international courts. And this is only the beginning of a long process that will shape Ukraine’s new judicial and legal history.

At the same time, our own practice clearly demonstrates how another powerful segment is taking shape: the protection of honor, dignity, and business reputation. In the context of an information war, the name of a person, a business, or a team is not an abstract concept but a full-fledged asset. And here, it’s very simple: either this asset is protected, or it is destroyed—quickly and publicly.

That is precisely why the demand for such practices will only grow. Because in this new reality, it is not those who make mistakes who lose, but those who fail to defend themselves in time.

An analysis of recent high-profile anti-corruption scandals and their legal prospects reveals a systemic problem: media hype is increasingly replacing actual legal work. A significant number of cases are presented as high-profile even at the pre-trial investigation stage, yet in practice they have extremely dubious procedural prospects.

In many cases, what we see is not legal logic, but a strategy for shaping public opinion. Public statements by anti-corruption agencies and affiliated organizations are often prepared in advance, accompanied by sensationalist language, and do not reflect the actual state of the judicial process. As a result, the illusion of a “sensational exposé” is created, while the case files are often based on entirely different—and significantly weaker—legal grounds.

The issue of information leaks warrants special attention. Procedural documents and court rulings often appear instantly in the media or on Telegram channels, creating additional pressure on those involved in the proceedings and opening the door to widespread manipulation of public opinion. Under such conditions, the court becomes not a venue for justice, but a component of an information campaign.

Artificial Intelligence and the Law

The modern legal profession is, above all, about digital evidence, working with large datasets, de-anonymization algorithms, blocking toxic Telegram channels, as well as well-thought-out informational and litigation strategies that operate in tandem. The law has long since gone beyond the confines of the courtroom—it operates simultaneously in courts, the media, and the digital sphere. We respect classical legal traditions, but at the same time we clearly understand that looking only backward means losing. That is why we are consciously investing in analytics, digital tools, and new formats of legal defense.

By 2026, this will become the norm. Video evidence, digital platforms such as the Adobe ecosystem, procedural analytics, and AI-based expert analysis—all of this will become a routine part of the judicial process. And those who aren’t afraid to embrace the future today will come out on top.

For the legal profession, artificial intelligence is no longer a matter for the future, but a matter of responsibility here and now. The European Union has long recognized the scale of this challenge and is systematically working to address it. The AI Act, rules for handling digital evidence, and the ban on dangerous automated decisions—all of this is already part of current or soon-to-be-enacted law.

In Ukraine, however, the situation is different for now. The use of artificial intelligence by lawyers, judges, and prosecutors is effectively unregulated and unchecked by either the law or ethical standards. And we are already seeing the consequences.

Sometimes they’re even comical. When lawyers try to draft legal opinions using AI, they end up making fools of themselves by citing nonexistent legal precedents that the AI didn’t actually find but, to put it mildly, invented—or, more accurately, “hallucinated.” To the court, this looks not like innovation, but like professional negligence.

Undoubtedly, artificial intelligence is a powerful tool. It is capable of processing vast amounts of information in a matter of minutes—tasks that used to take days or weeks. But without human intelligence, critical thinking, and oversight, this tool can easily become a source of errors—and sometimes, chaos.

That is precisely why 2026 will be a turning point. Ukraine is actively moving toward harmonizing its legislation with European law. The National Program for the Adaptation of Ukrainian Legislation to EU Law has already been approved. This document is strategic, as it defines the state’s systematic approach to fulfilling all obligations within the negotiation process. Parliament is ready to consolidate efforts at all levels to achieve tangible results.

This alignment means that the legal market will undergo a radical transformation: from approaches to evidence to standards of professional liability. As a result, those who already understand one simple fact will come out ahead: artificial intelligence does not replace lawyers, but it very quickly replaces those who do not know how to work with it.

Technology and Intellectual Property

Technology and intellectual property are at the heart of Ukraine’s future economy. Ukraine today has thousands of “dual-use” technologies: drones, military software, guidance systems, and analytical platforms. Without the proper legal “packaging,” these are simply a collection of designs and blueprints. With the right legal strategy, they become billion-dollar exports, real contracts, and global opportunities. This is the future for Ukraine.

In 2026, a new triad will take shape: scientists, lobbyists, and lawyers. Together, they will transform ideas into global products that will compete in international markets. It can be said that without this triangle, technologies remain mere potential, but with it, they become a weapon of economic success.

And most importantly: now is not the time to get carried away with inventions alone. True victory is when your technology not only works but also sells, is protected by law, and benefits the state and society.

Compensation for Damage Caused by the Russian Federation

Today, Ukrainian lawyers, together with the international legal community, continue to seek concrete, practical solutions for enforcing court rulings and arbitration mechanisms designed to ensure real compensation for those who have suffered as a result of Russian aggression.

At the same time, practice shows that even favorable court rulings often remain difficult to enforce today. This directly raises questions for lawyers and the state regarding the effectiveness of existing mechanisms for recovering damages and enforcing rulings.

It is worth noting separately the trend toward corporate bankruptcies during wartime. If bankruptcy resulted from the actions of the Russian Federation, the bankruptcy trustee is required to establish a causal link between the aggression and the enterprise’s financial insolvency before applying compensation mechanisms. In practice, however, most companies opt for claims for damages rather than bankruptcy proceedings, which is logical in the context of the aggressor’s international liability.

The concept of “Alter Ego” warrants special attention. Today, a significant amount of real estate and assets belonging to Russian companies—ranging from banking institutions to subsidiaries of Gazprom—have been seized on Ukrainian territory. The problem is that even seized property often cannot be effectively utilized: the Russian Federation systematically challenges these decisions and hides behind state immunity. That is precisely why Ukraine needs clear legislative regulation of the confiscation and nationalization of the Russian Federation’s “alter ego” assets as a tool for effective compensation for damages.

In addition, under the auspices of the Council of Europe, an International Commission for the Examination of Ukraine’s Claims has already been established, which will make it possible to determine the extent of the damage caused, set the amount of compensation, and consolidate data from the Register of Damages to ensure the Commission’s systematic and effective operation.

The key message is simple and unequivocal: only a combination of practical legal experience and legislative innovations makes it possible to effectively protect the rights of victims, consolidate the claims of local communities, and activate international mechanisms of justice to secure actual compensation for the harm caused by the aggression.