Provocativeness and a public profile, involvement in high-profile cases, and a lack of principles. The image of the modern media lawyer is embodied by Oleksiy Shevchuk, a partner at Barristers Law Firm. In an interview with “ZiB,” the lawyer shares his views on human rights and admits that there is, after all, one “drug” in his life.
“Our clients decide for themselves what kind of lawyer they want”
— In one of your interviews, you said that “a lawyer must perform their duties regardless of a person’s political preferences.” Does that mean you have no principles at work?
— I have convictions. I understand you’re asking if I’m a principleless animal? No, that’s not the case. I have a rule of the three “P’s”—“punctuality, integrity, and loyalty (Russian: ‘predannost’). And I have one conviction: I cannot take on cases that clearly contradict society’s moral principles.
However, if we apply this to our profession—the legal profession—then, by and large, I use my own convictions to decide which cases to take on and which to decline. I review the case, analyze it, and make a decision: do we take it or not?
There are eight of us partners in the firm. Some take on cases involving rape or murder. I don’t take on those types of cases; they’re too difficult for me given my personal convictions. I suppose that’s why I have reliable partners who can take on these cases and fill in the gaps where I fall short. Our firm’s approach to the role of a lawyer is collaborative: there’s Attorney Shadrin, Attorney Globa, and others. We complement each other. And indeed, it’s difficult for me to take on this category of cases because I have a unique perspective on the role of a lawyer and their mission. And I would say that I am very unprincipled when it comes to business matters and cases involving corruption, the economy, white-collar corruption, and any other crimes that do not concern a person’s life.
— So, you have a selective sense of principle?
— It’s a very specific worldview. There might be a million cynics who’d want to argue with me about what life actually is and whether the economy is also a form of life—in other words, engaging in a kind of sophistry. However, I can be unprincipled in all matters except those concerning human life, and except for cases where a person has been backed into a corner. If a client came to me today and said, “Alexei, look, you’ve backed our opponent into a corner, and we need to take everything away from him,” I would probably tell him that I’m not the right person to talk to.
There have been cases where a person seems to be in the right: a traffic accident, everyone is alive and well, but there’s a damaged vehicle and minor injuries to one of the parties involved. The client says, “Listen, Oleksiy, I want us to somehow hide the fact that I was driving under the influence.” And I reply, “If there weren’t any minor injuries, I might have looked at the documents in a way that would keep this story out of the picture. But since there are injuries, that would be unfair.”
I suppose some kind of internal moral compass kicks in for me at moments like that. Although a touch of cynicism and unprincipledness still prevails. The public is well aware of the high-profile cases I handle; they’re the ones that get the most media coverage.
“We’re the only ones stuck in this toxic environment, and we’re the only ones surviving.”
— And how should a lawyer conduct himself
to ensure that they aren’t identified with their client?
— We live in the 21st century. This is the century of brands, when all clients want to have a “appealing” brand. And our clients themselves decide what kind of lawyer they want. When we were kids, we watched cartoons featuring stores where you could buy a robot doll, program its behavior, or install chips. And now, that future has practically arrived—clients choose a lawyer who’s a good fit for them. They usually know exactly what they want.
For example, people accused of corruption come to us and say they need a defense. They know exactly what kind of defense they want. If they’ve come to us, they want an aggressive, media-savvy, high-profile, and assertive defense. They don’t want quiet, behind-the-scenes work that no one will ever hear about. They need to take the world by storm—brightly, quickly, specifically, and precisely. And this type of defense perfectly matches their personality type, their temperament, and their public image. Usually, these “rich scoundrels” (as they’re often called) are people who, in various ways—some through their own hard work, others not entirely through their own—have achieved that level of success and wealth. Their character traits align with the kind of defense they seek. That’s why people assume the client isn’t very decent—and neither are the lawyers. Are lawyers scoundrels? Just look at the kind of clients they have!
— A fisherman spots another fisherman from afar…
— My partners and I are always sitting around discussing this: people are slinging mud at us, calling us wolves, jackals—whatever they want. But when they personally find themselves in a difficult situation, they quietly start asking through mutual acquaintances: “Excuse me, but could we meet with you? We have a personal matter here, and we’d really like your help.”
They don’t run to those they’ve put on a pedestal as examples of purity and decency, almost elevating them to the rank of saints. They come to us because they know that only we are immersed in this toxic environment—and only we survive. That’s why I generally have little faith in the idea that a lawyer is one and the same as their client. I mean, if our partners were defending terrorists or bombers, would people be shouting, “You’re lawyers for terrorists!” or something like that?
We had a case where activists in the east attacked Oleksandr Shadrin and took his equipment and property because he was defending “terrorists.” But it’s every person’s right to receive a defense. We can’t say, “You’re a scoundrel, so you won’t get a defense.” Even if he is a scoundrel, it’s up to the court to determine whether that’s actually the case.
“A lawyer’s talent will never take precedence over the law.”
— What if a lawyer is so talented that he can, for example, convince the court that a murderer is not guilty?
— A lawyer’s talent will never take precedence over the law. If the provisions of the law are written in such a way that a person, exercising their right to a defense, can prove their innocence… And since these laws have been written over the course of centuries, the lawyer naturally uses what society—specifically, those who make the laws—has written. Consequently, if lawmakers have passed the laws that a lawyer relies on, providing the opportunity to defend a client through legal means without violating the law, that is not the lawyer’s fault. They build a case that leads the court to rule that the person is not guilty… If the person is guilty but, because of the way the law is written, avoids punishment, that is not a testament to the lawyer’s skill.
— Are these flaws in the law?
— Yes, these are flaws in the law. For example, many people disparage the U.S. legal system, while many others praise it. But how many scoundrels and criminals are acquitted by this system? If we start from the belief that everyone is a scoundrel or a lowlife and lock everyone up, then tomorrow we’ll end up with a regime that’s anything but democratic.
I’m convinced that if today a lawyer, using his or her skills, manages to have certain pieces of evidence excluded from a criminal case and his or her client is acquitted, then why not? He is merely demonstrating the flaws in the system or proving that the factors that could influence a person’s fate as a whole are minor.
By and large, the cases you’re referring to are precisely the kind I, as I’ve already said, don’t handle. After all, murder is a serious offense. Who can determine: guilty or not guilty? Only God, by and large. The same goes for the degree of responsibility for the act committed, and whether it is just.
— Yes, but we know that God does not punish people. He hates sin, but loves the sinner.
— Absolutely correct, but that person will bear responsibility for their actions in one form or another. And if today these actions were justified and the defense attorney was able to prove that there are loopholes in the law here and there, it’s only because that’s the law we have. This is how we’ve regulated our legal relationships so as not to turn into animals. So that we can take certain evidence into account. In other words, we evaluate any evidence according to the rules that we’ve established together. So does it make sense to blame the mirror?
If we have a set of rules that has been adopted, and we use those rules to prove a person’s innocence, then the legislature—if it believes something is wrong—needs to revise those rules.
You asked what to do if a talented lawyer can prove that a criminal is not guilty. In that case, we must also consider what a “crime” actually is. And we delve into the depths of the category and return to the fact that we are not relying on our own convictions. According to your conviction, this is a crime, but according to mine, taking stolen goods is not theft.
— But it’s one thing when the subject of the crime is money, and quite another when it concerns a person’s life.
— Yes, but, for example, our firm represents the relatives of the boy who was killed in Pereyaslav. By the way, for some reason, none of the “big-name” lawyers wanted to take on this case.
We recently discussed the situation in that case with our partners. After all, the case files provide very poor details regarding the condition of the police officers who killed the boy. Obviously, their lawyer will use this to their advantage. And here’s my question for you: Can a lawyer who brings this to the court’s attention be blamed if the investigator is doing such a poor job?
After all, if the prosecutor’s office were doing its job properly today, in many cases we’d simply have to say, “He’s such a good person; please give him the minimum sentence provided for under this section.” For the most part—in about 60% of cases—we rely on the prosecution’s shortcomings. And in only 40% of cases do we build a case based on our client’s position, which exonerates him. In other words, we rely on the facts provided to us by the client. So the attorney didn’t exonerate—or help exonerate—a scoundrel… He helped protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
“No one can say that I’m a bad lawyer”
— There’s a photo hanging on the wall in your office—a still from the movie *The Meeting Place Cannot Be Changed*. Whose side are you on—Sharapova’s or Zheglova’s?
— I’m on the side of the “Black Cat” gang. If I were a law enforcement officer, I’d certainly be on the side of the character played by Vladimir Vysotsky (whose birthday, by the way, is January 25). That’s because my methods are tough, precise, and well-coordinated. And in that case, I’d probably impress you, because sometimes I bend the rules of the law when I need to bring a case to a just conclusion.
— You often find yourself in the thick of conflicts. What’s the point of this struggle?
— In a struggle, it’s important not to get personal, not to drag loved ones into it, and not to resort to below-the-belt tactics. In other words, choose worthy opponents and fight.
A good example is my long-running battle with attorney Andriy Tsygankov—everyone knows about it. It’s a battle between equals, an interesting battle—it’s like aikido. He’s a very worthy opponent. And so we periodically take jabs at each other, and everyone watches this conflict unfold. I believe this is necessary. Do you know why? It’s competition.
Recently, there was a conflict over a certain trademark. And I showed that everyone is great at defending someone from the comfort of their couch, but when it comes down to it, they’re afraid to step into the public arena. When it comes to actual work, no one wants to do it.
The story behind the conflict is very simple. I came up with the idea; I devised the concept. I offered to work with this person, and they told me to “go to a certain place.” Can you believe it—out of the blue? I called and said, “Here’s a great staff and an office for you. Go ahead, but my only condition is that you periodically cover the news about what’s happening with us as lawyers.” And in response, they told me to get lost.
I registered the rights to my idea, created the project, and started developing it. And as a result, the competing project couldn’t keep up. And right away, everyone was like, “What a scoundrel! He stole it!” Nobody knows where they told me to go. If someone did that to you, what would you do?
— I’d start defending myself. That’s a natural reaction.
— Of course, I started explaining the situation, just like in the movie *Operation “I”...*. And look how wonderful it is: PR, everyone’s talking about it. But no one can say I’m a bad lawyer. Everyone writes: “famous lawyer,” “good attorney,” “journalist.”
Remember the movie “Maksym Perepelytsia,” where the old lady kept shouting, “Losses! Losses!” Well, take that and run with it! I showed everyone just how incompetent they are at what they do. However, we’re in negotiations, and my wife convinced me to give that person this trademark for one hryvnia. But if she hadn’t convinced me, I would never have done it.
I watched the video—she’s constantly crying. It’s not dignified to fight a rival when there are tears.
—Is that a principle?
—I suppose so, that’s my principle. As for the conflict with O. Tsygankov, he’s been in the market for a long time. He’s always been well-known and popular, and now a team of guys has shown up who are taking away some of his popularity. Of course, he doesn’t like it; of course, he wants to strike back. But he does it unprofessionally. He just nibbles away. And in this case, that’s actually more satisfying.
In all conflicts, we try to maintain a balance and adhere to the basic principle that a bad peace is better than a good war. Although a certain period of hostilities is still necessary to replenish supplies and stock the arsenal. So to speak, to dust off our jackets.
“I can even tell a client to his face that he’s a scoundrel.”
— Can a lawyer afford to express his political views? As far as I know, you can…
— Yes, I can. The thing is, I’m not your typical lawyer. I’m just a citizen with an active stance on life. I can express everything—both my political views and my personal opinions. I can even tell a client to his face that he’s a scoundrel if that’s what I think. This completely contradicts all sound principles—and even more so the goal of making money—because the client will turn around and walk out: “What’s this? I came here to be told I’m a good person, but it turns out I’m a scoundrel?” But I tell the truth, no matter what. That’s exactly why we often defend clients who are on the opposition side.
I can say unequivocally that there is a category of people whom I value and respect, regardless of which side of the fence they’re on. I have respect for Andriy Smirnov, simply as a person. Despite this, I have no respect for Andriy Bohdan, because I know him from various angles, and, believe me, his behavior today speaks to a complete loss of principles.
If, for example, I don’t like the policies of Petro Poroshenko or Volodymyr Zelenskyy, I’ll say so. And even if my clients support one or the other, I’ll still say so. Perhaps, as a lawyer, I have no right to speak about this, but as a person—I do. And the person still takes precedence over the lawyer, because I am, after all, a person 24/7.
“I’m the one who made the legal profession as public as it is today.”
— You see, we keep coming back to this: what’s human must come first.
— Yes, it should. I just said that I’m a person 24/7, but in my rhythm of life, I’m also a lawyer 24/7. For many of my colleagues, it’s 4/7. Plus, every now and then, someone takes a jab at me. “Those scoundrels—how did they get so successful?” But we work 24/7.
It’s useful to express political views today. Let’s go back to what I’ve already said: we live in the 21st century. And that means people are reading what we say. After all, I’m the one who made the legal profession as public as it is today. Before me, no one quoted lawyers, and lawyers didn’t speak out so vividly or give interviews. I’m the one who made this profession so media-friendly.
— Did journalism help you with that?
— 100%. Journalists are the best people there are. Nothing is possible today without them. Lawyers haven’t figured that out yet. That’s why I still try to distance myself from conflicts with journalists. You can win, but the victory will be so hollow…
— This isn’t even a war with journalists, but a war with certain ideas. We have very few journalists who express their own views…
— Very few. But the fact that I made the legal profession public was just a coincidence. It could have been anyone—Andriy Tsygankov, Oleksandr Lysak, Vitaliy Serdyuk… Anyone! It just so happened that at some point, I had the opportunity to become the face of public speaking. And then everyone picked up on the idea that a lawyer can be a great public speaker. And even in major cases today, clients use our model, where there’s a designated lawyer-spokesperson.
— And you were the mastermind behind the “Lawyer’s Story” contest, weren’t you?
— Yes, because I believe that today there isn’t a single collection of compelling life stories that lawyers could share and turn into a compilation. Because sometimes we have such adventures that are simply impossible to describe. We were also the ones who came up with the idea for an audio version of the Criminal Procedure Code for people with disabilities. Our team is leading the way in the market today.
“If there were a drug called ‘lawyerhood,’ I think it would be very popular.”
— What movie genre does your personal story as a lawyer resemble?
— Well, Guy Ritchie’s films are shot in the style of British black humor. My story as a lawyer is like a great plot for a Guy Ritchie movie.
— Wouldn’t you really like to write a screenplay for a movie about lawyers?
— I suppose once we’re done with our practice, we’ll have the chance to write something. I think we’d have more than enough material for a great screenplay. Because whenever we start talking about what’s happened to us, our friends and colleagues listen, and the evening turns into something incredibly interesting. There are some things we can’t talk about right now, but I’m sure that in 10 to 15 years, we’ll be able to share them.
— Doesn’t your work take over your personal life?
— It takes over completely. There’s absolutely no time left for my personal life. And, unfortunately, that’s a big problem I have to work on—together with coaches and people who help me manage my time, because it’s impossible to organize all this chaos on my own. Work consumes everything, and I can’t even manage to disconnect from work when I’m at home. As a result, my family life suffers greatly. I had to make a choice: either become a famous lawyer or focus on my family. Unfortunately, I chose my career. I regret it, of course.
— But it’s not for the money, is it?
— No. In general, everything you see and everything you know about me isn’t for the money. Money means nothing to me. For me, money is just a means of communication. All my partners know that I part ways with them very easily. It’s a story about a way of life. If there were a drug like the legal profession, I think it would be very popular. And if it doesn’t exist, then it would have to be invented. Just like a drug. Because this lifestyle, it seems to me, stimulates our brains to produce such a large amount of neurotransmitters—substances that even some drugs can’t produce.
It’s a matter of survival—will you make it or not? I’ll tell you the truth: I burned out and kept coming back to this line of work.
— Did you burn out physically or emotionally?
— Emotionally. But physically, there were also attempts on my life. The work is intense; they hire us because we’re the kind of guys who don’t keep quiet. That’s why I travel with security. Emotionally, I was breaking down, but then the question arose: what’s next? Until it’s clear what’s next, I have to keep running on this racetrack.
— For you, are high-profile cases a rush of adrenaline or a logic puzzle with an asterisk?
— Every case is different. There are cases that, of course, are an adrenaline rush. For example, the case involving the video of V. Zelenskyy, where he’s hit by a KamAZ truck. We jumped right in, told a story, and stirred up quite a bit of drama! But the “Oleg Bakhmatyuk case” is a logic puzzle with an asterisk.
“The O. Onyshchenko case isn’t a crime; it involves legitimate business transactions.”
— And how is the “Oleksandr Onyshchenko case” progressing?
— We’re representing only one defendant in that case. I don’t believe in this case at all.
— You don’t believe it was worth opening in the first place?
— Yes. At some point, they wanted to “link” me to it—I was called as a witness. I know the gas market firsthand, because I was involved in gas trading for a long time. Back then, that was my main business, and my law practice came second. When that “racetrack” closed for renovation, we jumped into this. And I invested most of the income I earned into developing my law practice.
Everyone asks, “Where did the money come from? How did you afford an office like this?” It’s simple: I earned it there and invested it here.
I think the “O. Onyshchenko case” has absolutely no merit. This is a case where law enforcement got hung up on some loophole in the law that we’ve discussed. It’s not a crime; these are legitimate business transactions. I say this because I know the gas market. There are rumors that I made money in this business and didn’t pay the state what I owed. However, there is no criminal case against me. And I owe the state nothing—there are documents to prove it.
I pay all my taxes honestly. Last year, I paid about a million. The “O. Onyshchenko case” is political, and it was a publicity stunt for Artem Sytnyk when he was trying to build his reputation. This is a populist move by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau.
“Society always needs some kind of Joker, and it wants one.”
— By the way, didn’t you want to head the bureau?
— Yes, I did, but not anymore.
— Why did you want to? Do you know who the real corrupt officials are?
— I know who the real corrupt officials are. But I don’t want to mete out any justice today. Why did I want to head the NABU? Solely for the publicity. I didn’t even intend to win.
— So you didn’t want to lead it, but you wanted to win?
— Yes, that’s exactly right. In every competition I’ve publicly participated in, I made it to the finals… I demonstrated my level of knowledge. People often ask me, “Why are you commenting on us here instead of coming out to meet us?” Of course, I comment and don’t go out because I want to demonstrate their incompetence to them. I made it to the finals of competitions and achieved high results. However, I was either eliminated or not selected because the winner was already known in advance. But even if I had won, I would have left of my own accord, because I’m not interested in that.
I’m a very freedom-loving person. And all these positions mean a lack of freedom. It’s all PR, popularity, and a public display of knowledge. How well do I know the law? 90 out of 100%. And it’s the same with my language skills. Any competition can confirm that. And my scores on the situational tasks were the best among all the contestants. This is just a way to inflate one’s own rating and anti-rating scores.
By the way, I very often play the anti-rating card. At a certain stage, the anti-rating was everything to me. So you’re talking to me and thinking: he doesn’t seem like a scoundrel, he seems like an interesting person. But if you got to know me even better, you’d form a completely different opinion. Society always needs a Joker of some sort, and it wants one.
“The ability to engage in dialogue is probably one of the best qualities I’ve acquired in the legal profession.”
— What role does Russian attorney Ilya Novikov, whom you invited to join your team, play in your firm?
— He’s our partner, responsible for the international sector, for communicating with foreign clients and international courts. The story is very simple: Ilya had been in Ukraine on his own for a long time, and I’m grateful to fate that I offered him the chance to work with us and he agreed. We’ve carried out more than one joint project—major leasing cases and the “Platon case.” He helps us with cases in Russia, and we help him with cases in Ukraine.
— Did you decide to join forces based on your friendship, or did some rational consideration play a role after all?
— He really is my friend. And he felt more comfortable establishing a foothold in Ukraine with a friend than with someone he didn’t know.
— Do you often receive angry messages? How do you react to unfounded accusations directed specifically at you?
— I get them very often. I used to take them very hard. But now I just don’t react. If someone wants to say something to me, they’ll always find a way to call and ask a question. If I have a clear conscience, I simply don’t respond. If I think there’s value in a dialogue, I’ll do everything possible to make it happen. And I’ll definitely find a third party—a mediator or moderator—to facilitate it. The ability to engage in dialogue is surely one of the best qualities I’ve gained from practicing law.
— What can we expect from attorney Shevchuk in 2020?
— From Attorney Shevchuk in 2020, you can expect nothing but new media projects. Projects that will be interesting to read, listen to, and watch. In 2020, Attorney Shevchuk will be someone who promotes the legal profession. I’m staying in the legal profession and have no plans to go into politics.
Author: Law and Business
Source: Law and Business