A Brief Overview of the Nature of the Legal Profession.

It is human nature to define a specific goal for any activity and to set intermediate objectives along the path to achieving it. However, when carrying out these tasks and achieving these goals, the question always arises: “Is it lawful and ethical to achieve the goal by one means or another?”

The issue of the balance between ends and means in a lawyer’s practice has always attracted particular attention. For the legal profession, moral judgment is more important than for many government agencies. And it is unacceptable to achieve a goal by any means necessary. One may act only within the bounds of the law.

Thus, while the authority of government agencies rests on official powers and the support of the entire state apparatus, the authority of the legal profession rests on a single foundation—public trust, which is quite difficult to earn and easy to lose, especially in such a contentious sphere as a lawyer’s work in court. As the distinguished attorney Fedir Nikiforovich Plevako said: “Behind the prosecutor stands the law, but behind the attorney stands a person with their own fate, their own hopes, and this person looks to the lawyer for protection, and it is very frightening to falter while bearing such a burden.” Participation in the resolution of legal conflicts requires a lawyer to adhere to certain moral and ethical standards.

The most fundamental principle of a lawyer’s work is undoubtedly the rule established for doctors: do no harm. In defending their clients’ rights and upholding the interests of justice, lawyers must promote the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized by law, and in all cases act independently and in good faith, in accordance with the law and recognized standards of professional ethics.

A lawyer shall use only those means of defense that are in accordance with the law and best serve justice, the strengthening of the rule of law, and the protection of individual rights. The use of immoral or unlawful means in defense cannot be justified by any noble purpose. A lawyer is prohibited from accepting a case if the result desired by the client, or the means of achieving it insisted upon by the client, are unlawful. In such cases, the attorney must inform the client that the use of unlawful means is impermissible and point out possible lawful ways to achieve the same or a similar result. If the client insists on using unlawful means, the attorney must refuse to enter into an agreement with such a client. If the client takes actions related to the substance of the retainer, and these actions violate applicable law, refuses to cease such unlawful actions despite the attorney’s explanation, or uses the attorney’s legal assistance to facilitate the commission of a crime, the attorney shall terminate the agreement with such a client prematurely.

It should be noted that sometimes, when a lawyer accepts a client’s mandate and carries it out, the methods proposed by the client to advance their interests may conflict with the ethics of the legal profession. For example, inducing witnesses to give knowingly false testimony or using personal connections to directly or indirectly influence the court.

Indeed, from the client’s perspective, the main goal is to achieve the desired outcome, and the means of achieving it are not always important to them.

Client dissatisfaction during the course of legal representation may also stem from the attorney’s actions, which the client considers inappropriate or improper. This can result from the client’s own actions or from other reasons beyond the attorney’s control. In particular, it may result from the client’s lack of candor when describing the circumstances of the case and failure to disclose information to the attorney that is essential for fulfilling the retainer agreement. It is also possible if the attorney fails to ask the client clarifying questions, and the client does not recognize the importance of certain information due to a lack of familiarity with legal nuances.

In legal practice, there are instances where a client deliberately conceals important information, fails to disclose it, or fails to report certain circumstances or the existence of certain documents (for example, an agreement signed by the client). This may occur because the client believes that such information is not in the case’s best interest, as well as out of a desire to lead the attorney to believe the case will be easily won. As a result, the attorney misjudges the complexity of the case, is unable to predict the other party’s actions, and cannot develop an effective defense strategy.

If the attorney fails to achieve a positive outcome, the client experiences general disappointment, even though the attorney is not at fault. Therefore, I advise you to be as open and honest as possible when consulting an attorney and to provide all information relevant to receiving qualified legal assistance.

Undoubtedly, a lawyer has no right to make any incorrect, false, or misleading statements. A lawyer is strictly prohibited from inducing witnesses to give false testimony, resorting to illegal methods of pressure against the opposing party or witnesses, or using personal connections to influence a court or other authority. At the same time, they may not ignore any evidence that casts doubt on the charges brought, including the defendant’s denial of guilt. A defense attorney must be guided in his or her work by the principle that doubts regarding the proof of the charges that cannot be dispelled must be interpreted in favor of the defendant. And even when the evidence of guilt appears to be very convincing, a reasonable, principled, and courageous challenge by the defense attorney to the charges—on the grounds that doubt regarding the proof of guilt cannot be ruled out— cannot be regarded as anything other than the fulfillment of his professional and moral duty.

In all cases, priority is given not to the legitimacy of the defendant’s interests, but to the legitimacy of the means of his defense. Therefore, a defense attorney must possess professional knowledge, be honest, moderate in his methods, and independent in his convictions. As the eminent jurist A.F. Koni said, “He is not his client’s servant, nor is he an accomplice in helping him escape the deserved punishment of justice. He is a friend, an advisor, a human being.” At the same time, just as for a doctor, in a lawyer’s professional practice there can be no “good” or “bad” people, no “deserved” or “undeserved” illnesses; but rather there are patients and suffering that must be alleviated; similarly, for a lawyer, there are no “clean” or “dirty,” “just” or “unjust” cases—there is only an opportunity to counter the prosecutor’s arguments with the full force and subtlety of one’s own arguments, exclusively in the client’s best interests.

Therefore, remember that a lawyer is independent of their client. This principle makes sense, first of all, because a lawyer’s impartiality directly influences the soundness of the decisions they make. Everyone has emotions. If a lawyer views a case through the lens of their own emotions and preferences, this will lead to a misperception of the facts and may harm the case.

Second, a lawyer makes decisions regarding the approach and methods of handling a case after it has begun without interference from the client, since the client, lacking sufficient legal training, may, through their demands, undermine the lawyer’s efforts and the entire strategy the lawyer has developed.

The prohibition against equating a lawyer with a client is an important safeguard for the practice of law. However, while it remains relevant today, it is usually ignored or is completely unknown to the public.

Even from events occurring in our country, one can cite numerous examples where this guarantee of the legal profession is violated: lawyers are threatened with reprisals for providing assistance in specific cases, and their honor and dignity are defamed online. In such situations, the lawyer is directly equated with the client.

In addition, it has become quite common today for law enforcement agencies to take unlawful actions against defense attorneys with the aim of depriving the client of the proper, qualified defense that only their attorney can provide. For example, formally initiating criminal proceedings against a lawyer and conducting illegal searches—for which, unfortunately, investigating judges grant authorization without taking into account the formal nature of the proceedings.

Such equating of a lawyer with a client is not only unacceptable but also indicates a low level of legal awareness in society regarding this issue.

Society should not condemn a lawyer for building a legal defense for an accused person. The quality of a lawyer’s work directly determines the quality of legal relations and the protection of all citizens’ rights, as well as the development of Ukraine as a state in which the individual—their life, health, honor, dignity, inviolability, and safety—is recognized as the highest social value.