Lawyers’ self-governance “tries” members of the High Qualifications Commission of Judges: how pressure is justified as protection
The Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of the Bar (QDCB) of the Vinnytsia region is set to consider disciplinary cases against members of the High Qualifications Commission of Judges (HQCJ), Ruslan Sydorovych and Roman Sabodash. They will be assessed in their capacity as attorneys, even though the complaints concern their work in the office at the HQCJ, and the validity of Sydorovych’s and Sabodash’s attorney’s licenses has been suspended.
“The key point here is the following: work in judicial governance bodies is incompatible with legal practice, which is why I suspended my attorney activity immediately after my appointment to the HQCJ. What makes this case particularly piquant is that many sitting judges and prosecutors also have their адвокатські свідоцтва suspended, yet (quite logically) no one brings them to disciplinary liability for allegedly violating the Rules of адвокатська ethics,” Sydorovych wrote.
An additional variable is added to this notional legal puzzle: attorney Zhanna Hrushko. She was a candidate for a judge position at an administrative court of appeal. To be appointed, Hrushko had to undergo an interview with the HQCJ. According to the HQCJ’s decision, Hrushko did not score the required number of points and therefore did not pass the competition for the appellate judge position. She then filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court (SC), which sided with the HQCJ and found the decision lawful. Hrushko is currently appealing that decision before the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.
Following the HQCJ decision, the Ukrainian National Bar Association (UNBA) stated that it would initiate disciplinary proceedings against Ruslan Sydorovych and Roman Sabodash. Both members of the Commission questioned Hrushko during the interview. In the UNBA’s view, they allegedly identified the attorney with her client, interfered with her professional rights, and discredited the legal profession. Moreover, the Bar Council advanced the absurd claim that HQCJ members allegedly disclosed the attorney–client privilege, even though the duty to preserve it rests with the attorney herself—i.e., Hrushko. Ultimately, it was Hrushko herself who filed the complaint against both HQCJ members. She accuses Sydorovych, for instance, of asking improper questions about her desire to become a judge and about whether she complied with financial monitoring requirements.
HQCJ members and attorney status: why mixing roles is a problem
The Supreme Court confirmed the lawfulness of the HQCJ’s decision regarding Hrushko. Accordingly, the Commission members acted within their mandate. The existence of a breach of the attorney’s ethics rules in this situation appears, at a minimum, unsubstantiated. In these circumstances, the QDCB of Vinnytsia region would effectively be assessing the actions of Sydorovych and Sabodash as officials of a state body rather than as attorneys, which goes beyond its competence. The decisions and actions of the UNBA, therefore, look like a deliberate interference in the work of the HQCJ and pressure on its members.
Sydorovych’s case may signal not only pressure on him over “inconvenient decisions” but also a private interest. This is not the first attempt to bring him to disciplinary liability. Sydorovych chaired the HQCJ meeting that assessed judge Olena Izovitova-Vakim, daughter of UNBA head Lidiia Izovitova. At that time, the Commission found the judge unfit for office and recommended her dismissal.
The story enters a new cycle
This kind of pressure on public officials who previously practised as attorneys is, unfortunately, not new.
Illustrative are the cases of attorneys Andrii Vyshnevskyi and Valeriia Kolomiiets. They were deprived of their right to practise law because of their personal position rather than because of professional misconduct. Andrii Vyshnevskyi was responsible at the Ministry of Justice for the free legal aid system. At a conference, he stated that the state of the legal profession was dire and required urgent reform. Valeriia Kolomiiets led the same area at the Ministry. She opposed the Ukrainian National Bar Association’s attempt to gain access to the free legal aid budget. Both were deprived of their right to practise law following complaints by UNBA representatives for allegedly “destructive management” and “negative attitudes toward the legal profession.” To substantiate the complaint against Kolomiiets, her business correspondence with Valentyn Hvozdii was used and portrayed as improper communication.
The UNBA is currently also interfering with the work of Roman Maselko, a member of the High Council of Justice (HCJ). He exercised his mandate while conducting an integrity review of a judicial candidate, attorney Oleksandr Vikhrov. Following the review, Maselko concluded that Vikhrov had a range of violations, and the HCJ refused to appoint Vikhrov.
Among the violations identified in relation to Oleksandr Vikhrov were:
-
Dubious grounds for obtaining a deferment from mobilisation.
Vikhrov obtained a court decision dissolving his marriage while maintaining two children as dependents. The next day after the decision took effect, he married his ex-wife’s sister, who also has a child. Immediately thereafter, he obtained large-family status and a right to deferment. At the same time, the candidate travelled abroad with his ex-wife while his new “wife” remained in Ukraine.
-
An administrative protocol for wilful disobedience to a lawful police order.
Police were detaining a driver showing signs of intoxication. Vikhrov, also showing signs of intoxication, encouraged the driver to flee, obstructed police officers, pushed them away, and attempted to get into the vehicle. Police used pepper spray (“Teren”) against him. In court, Vikhrov claimed he was providing legal assistance to the driver. The court acquitted him on the basis of video footage of the events.
-
A clear mismatch between the candidate’s assets (and those of his family members) and their declared income.
The overall discrepancy was about UAH 2 million, including a house and expensive cars.
Eleven out of fifteen HCJ members supported Maselko’s proposal. The UNBA, in turn, “did not stay silent.” It called the review of Vikhrov “interference with legal practice” and initiated disciplinary proceedings against Maselko as an attorney. We have seen this before. Could and should the UNBA have initiated disciplinary proceedings against Vikhrov for such violations? Probably yes—but its priorities appear to lie elsewhere.
The High Council of Justice found that the UNBA’s decisions and statements regarding Maselko were harmful and unfounded on two occasions.
“The HCJ emphasised that assessing the actions of HCJ members through the prism of ‘incorrect’ voting, in the UNBA’s view, is unfounded and irresponsible. Such claims discredit the High Council of Justice as an independent constitutional body of judicial governance and undermine the authority of justice in general.”
The UNBA did not heed the HCJ’s position and, two days later, nonetheless filed a disciplinary complaint against Maselko with the QDCB of the Zakarpattia region.
“In these circumstances, the UNBA’s actions indicate not the protection of a violated right, but rather the provision of its own value judgments regarding the activities of a member of the High Council of Justice, which in substance constitutes a form of pressure and interference with the exercise of his powers. By establishing in its decision an alleged fact that a member of the High Council of Justice violated the Rules of Legal Ethics and the Attorney’s Oath, the UNBA in fact resorted to assessing the actions of an official who exercises his powers not as an attorney, but as a member of a constitutional body of judicial governance.”
Where the line lies
The UNBA’s attacks under Izovitova’s leadership against members of the HCJ and the HQCJ form part of a broader picture: a struggle by unreformed bodies against renewed institutions that are cleansing the judiciary and filling it with higher-quality candidates. Disciplinary mechanisms become the lever of influence. A tool designed to respond to misconduct is turned into a tool of pressure. At the same time, when attorneys appear in cases involving bribing judges, trading access to restricted parts of the court register, or cooperating with the Russian authorities, the UNBA acts as if nothing happened. White is called black, and black is called white.
In European countries, professional self-governance bodies safeguard the reputation of the legal profession and strengthen public trust in lawyers. The priority should be maintaining high standards of professional ethics, not protecting private interests.
In this situation, the QDCB faces a distinct challenge. The cases of Sydorovych, Sabodash, and Maselko will demonstrate how independent the Bar’s disciplinary bodies truly are and whether their decisions are well-reasoned and lawful.
At the same time, using disciplinary procedures to pressure individual lawyers is one of the profession’s malignant pathologies. The European Commission, in its 2025 report, also drew attention to the abuse of disciplinary mechanisms against lawyers and to inconsistent practice in their application.
Against the backdrop of these abuses by the Bar’s leadership, the need for reform of the legal profession becomes even more urgent—yet there has been no tangible progress for three years.
