One of the most dangerous distortions in the perception of a lawyer remains the conflation of the lawyer with the client. 

In public discourse, this issue flares up time and again in high-profile cases, replacing an understanding of the defense attorney’s role with emotions and stereotypes. But when a lawyer is blamed for the motives or actions of their client, it is not only the profession that suffers—the adversarial nature of the process itself and the human right to a fair trial are also threatened.

The Fallacy of Identification

Identifying a lawyer with a client means attributing to the lawyer the characteristics or motives of the person they are defending and creating the impression that they are one and the same. In practice, this becomes a tool for exerting pressure: the lawyer’s professional status and the guarantees of their practice are called into question due to the client’s negative image. This phenomenon has accompanied the legal profession from the very beginning, as society often tends to look for “culprits nearby” without distinguishing between the roles in the legal process.

In the Ukrainian context, the problem is exacerbated by a low level of legal literacy. For some citizens, the lawyer’s role in the justice system remains unclear: the lawyer is perceived not as a guarantor of the legality of the process, but as an accomplice to the criminal. This false image is reinforced by the media environment, which is often sensationalist, fragmented, and emotionally charged. People lose their ability to think critically and easily succumb to an imposed collective stance. This is precisely why such characterizations spread and are reproduced so easily, especially when they reach the media, where the negative narrative is amplified and takes on the characteristics of public condemnation.

Public campaigns that portray a lawyer as a defender of criminals (murderers, rapists, thieves, corrupt officials, traitors, and collaborators) create a dangerous logic: the professional performance of one’s duties is interpreted as a sign of sympathy or solidarity with the client. The consequences are predictable—ranging from reputational pressure and threats to actual incidents in which lawyers are forced to refuse cases or work under constant danger.

In the broader perspective, the harm runs much deeper. This conflation undermines the adversarial nature of the process, weakens the institution of defense, and effectively deprives individuals of the opportunity to receive proper legal assistance. Systematic pressure alters lawyers’ behavior, curtails their professional activity, and threatens their independent status. In this model, everyone loses: both those who are being defended today and those who will need defense themselves tomorrow.

Lack of Safeguards

Ukrainian law and international standards explicitly prohibit equating a lawyer with a client. Paragraph 16 of Part 1 of Article 23 of the Law “On the Bar and the Practice of Law” establishes a direct prohibition on such actions. Paragraph 18 of the section “Guarantees for the Practice of Lawyers” in the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime, 1990) enshrines a similar approach: lawyers must not be identified with their clients or their cases in connection with the performance of their professional duties. The International Bar Association’s Standards on the Independence of the Legal Profession (para. 7) also emphasize that a lawyer must not be identified by either the authorities or the public with a client or a client’s case, no matter how popular or unpopular it may be.

Despite the existence of these rules, such identification remains a widespread practice. The key reason is the lack of effective mechanisms to hold lawyers accountable for violations. 

Even criminal law safeguards fail to fulfill their intended function. Article 397 of the Criminal Code provides for liability for interfering with the activities of a defense attorney or a person’s representative; however, in practice, it is virtually ineffective. During the first ten months of 2025, 107 criminal proceedings were registered under this article, and in none of them were suspects formally charged. Given the ratio of the number of attorneys to the number of violations they report, these statistics indicate a lack of effective protection.

Actual Liability

On July 16, 2025, the Verkhovna Rada adopted Law No. 4547-IX “On Amendments to the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses and the Criminal Code of Ukraine Regarding Ensuring Compliance with Guarantees of the Practice of Law.” In particular, it introduced administrative liability for equating a lawyer with a client—in the form of fines ranging from 1,700 to 10,200 UAH. This development caused a significant stir among some members of the journalistic community and civil society activists.

The main criticism centered on the assumption that any mention of a lawyer in the media could serve as grounds for imposing a penalty. However, the law does not provide for punishment for reporting on court proceedings or a lawyer’s involvement in a case. Liability arises exclusively for actions aimed at exerting negative pressure on a lawyer or undermining the guarantees of their professional practice. If a publication does not contain such content, there are no grounds for prosecution. The court will determine the presence or absence of signs of an offense based on a report prepared by the Bar Association.

There is also a widespread claim that this restricts freedom of speech. However, the law does not introduce new prohibitions on speech but rather establishes liability for actions that are already explicitly prohibited by legislation and international standards. In this sense, its logic is no different from other provisions establishing liability for public calls to action or threats.

Some of the critical assessments are based on a misinterpretation of international standards. The principle of non-identification is indeed intended to protect lawyers from state pressure, but it applies equally to any form of influence, including public pressure. The goal of the national legislature is to create a practical mechanism for ensuring these guarantees, not to interfere with freedom of speech or restrict public debate.

***

Under the Constitution, an independent bar is one of the key elements of the justice system and a necessary condition for the realization of every person’s constitutional right to adequate legal assistance. However, preserving its status is impossible under conditions of pressure arising from the conflation of the attorney with the client. Such practices undermine the adversarial nature of the process, weaken defense guarantees, and ultimately harm justice and fairness. In a state governed by the rule of law, there can be no place for this phenomenon.