Terms of consideration of claims in disciplinary proceedings through the prism of individual decisions of the Higher Qualification and Disciplinary Bar Commission

The article analyzes some aspects of consideration of claims (complaints) for improper behavior of an advocate, which may result in his disciplinary responsibility, in terms of compliance with the terms of consideration of such claims (complaints) provided for by the current legislation. To date, the legislation provides for any person to file a complaint against an advocate regarding the disciplinary action of the latter. This opportunity is primarily intended to protect people’s rights from unlawful and illegal actions of an advocate. The protection of rights includes, among other things, the inevitable onset of specific disciplinary responsibility of the advocate. The author analyzed the decisions made by the Higher Qualification and Disciplinary Bar Commission based on the results of the review of the decisions of the Qualification and Disciplinary Bar Commissions regarding compliance with the terms of disciplinary proceedings in the process of considering claims (complaints) regarding the behavior of advocates. Through the prism of the decisions of the HQDBC, the approximate terms of the disciplinary proceedings have been established, within which claims (complaints) are considered. This study took into account the decisions of the HQDBC, made by this self-governing body of the bar in 2023. These decisions related to the QDBC’s inaction regarding failure to make timely decisions based on the results of the claim (complaint) submitted to advocates, groundless suspension of disciplinary proceedings against the advocates, long-term inaction of the QDBC regarding failure to take any actions to consider the claim (complaint). The analysis of these decisions made it possible to distinguish problems that directly affect the legality of the final decision of the QDBC. At the same time, such an analysis made it possible to assess the systemic nature of this problem and determine its causes. According to the results of the study of the Law of Ukraine “On the Bar and Practice of Law” [1], the author concluded that there is no article in it that would provide for the responsibility of persons participating in the decision-making of the QDBC, which contributes to the violation of the principle of reasonable time of the hearing. In turn, the analysis of the practice of the decisions of the HQDBC provided an opportunity to confirm the fact that the terms of consideration of cases are too long, exceed the limits of both reasonable time of the hearing and the terms specified in sub-legal normative acts, and often lead advocates to avoid responsibility.