The article focuses on the ethical standards underlying the work of attorneysatlaw and the requirements for public behavior of an attorney-at-law in the young Ukrainian State. The purpose of the article is to outline the public purpose of the attorney’s-at-law profession in the context of the reform of justice.

The article notes that the Bar, along with public prosecution, is an integral part of the system of justice. To make his/her work successful and provide properly qualified legal aid to the public, an attorney-at-law should be proficient in the relevant legal technique, i.e. a set of methods, techniques and skills which he/she uses while acting as a defense counsel, in order to provide clients with properly qualified legal aid. The judicial reform which is underway in Ukraine, certain elements borrowed into the criminal process from the Anglo-American system of law, expanded opportunities for attorneys-at-law after introduction of the principle “poisoned tree gives poisoned fruit”, the adversarial system and the right of a defense counsel to the opening speech – this has exposed the Bar to the need to rethink its role in court procedure. Significant changes made to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in 2012 (Ukraine’s CPC) put on the agenda certain new, additional theoretical and practical tasks which relate to training of legal profession students. This means that legal education should organically combine doctrinal knowledge and practical experience. It is noted that currently processes are underway via which the continental system of law is converging (merging) with the Anglo-American system. The author notes that in Ukraine’s CPC of 2012, as amended, this convergence is implemented. The article points at the existing phenomenon of obvious exaggeration of the place and role which pre-trial investigation has in Ukraine, both in doctrine and in practice. Attention is drawn to the fact that attorneys should be aware of the ideology of the American doctrine, which states that the trial is a performance staged by two directors: the prosecutor and the attorney-at-law. The author supports the position of the representative of the Kharkiv school of law A. Panova on the expediency of using the phrase “factual data” instead of the concept of “evidence” at the pre-trial investigation stage. The author gives an example of illegal investigation methods which still occur in the practice of law enforcement agencies. The position stated in the bill submitted to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on the possibility of dismissal of a judge for reversal of a judgment is critically assessed.

Bibliography

Authored books

1.Panova A, Vyznannia dokaziv nedopustymymy u kryminalnomu provadzhenni [Recognizing Evidence as Inadmissible in Criminal Proceedings] (Pravo 2017) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

2. Aleksandrov A, ‘“Pohvala” teorii formal’nyh dokazatel’stv’ [‘“Praise” of the Theory of Formal Proofs’] (2002) 4 Izvestija vuzov. Pravovedenie 34-7 (in Russian).

Websites

3. Zeikan Ya, ‘Posada suddi v Ukraini: skilky suddiv nam potribno?’ [‘The Position of Judge in Ukraine: How Many Judges Do We Need?’] (Racurs.ua, 29.10.2019) <https://racurs. ua/ua/2474-posada-suddi-v-ukrayini-skilky-suddiv-nam-potribno.html> (accessed: 20.11.2019) (in Ukrainian).