Reform of the legal profession: why the state is once again trying to fix what it does not trust
In January 2026, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine established a working group to improve legislation in the field of advocacy and legal practice. It looks like another government initiative.
In reality, however, it is a symptom of a much deeper process than the need to “improve” the rules.
When the state begins to reform the legal profession, it does not mean that the legal profession is performing poorly.
More often than not, it means that the state is dissatisfied with how the profession works within the justice system, rather than with the quality of the legal profession itself.
Today’s public discussions about the legal profession boil down to technical issues: the composition of self-governing bodies, disciplinary procedures, access to the profession, ethical standards, and compliance with European models.
All of this is important, but the priority is that every reform begins with a loss of trust.
Why the legal profession appeared in the Roadmap on the Rule of Law
The inclusion of the legal profession in the Roadmap on the Rule of Law, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine in 2025 as part of the negotiation process for accession to the European Union, is often perceived as a sign of distrust in the profession, but the Roadmap is not about evaluating lawyers or the legal profession as such, but about the systemic role of this institution in ensuring the rule of law.
For the EU, the legal profession is not subject to administrative control; it is an indicator of the quality of justice.
The reality of protection is assessed: does a person have access to an independent lawyer, is there actual adversariality between the parties, and is professional ethics not replaced by formal control?
That is why the reform of the legal profession within the Roadmap is seen as part of the broader issue of trust in the judicial system, in the process, and in the state as a guarantor of human rights.
In this sense, the legal profession appears in the Roadmap not as a “problem” but as a key element of the architecture of the rule of law.
At the domestic level, the logic of reform is often shifted. The state tends to perceive the reform of the legal profession as a tool for its regulation rather than an indicator of trust in the justice system. In this approach, reform becomes a response not to systemic problems, but to dissatisfaction with how the legal profession functions in the existing model of justice.
How this looks in practice
In daily practice, this shift in emphasis manifests itself in small but systemic ways.
For example, the active procedural position of the defense in filing motions, insisting on the examination of evidence, and recording violations is often perceived as an attempt to complicate or delay the proceedings. We hear this in public statements by judges and prosecutors. In reality, the lawyer is exercising his or her legal rights, but such behavior causes irritation and is usually considered an abnormal element of the adversarial process.
In other cases, the defense’s position is presented in detail in court hearings and even formally reflected in the court decision, but without a real assessment of the merits. Arguments may be listed but not analyzed, and key arguments may be left unanswered. As a result, there is a sense that the lawyer is participating in the process without having any real influence on its outcome.
It is precisely these minor situations that contribute to the general feeling of imbalance. This is not always recorded in the rulings, but it is clearly felt in the courtroom. The lawyer is formally present in the process, but is not perceived as an equal participant whose position determines the course and outcome of the case.
Three crises of confidence in the justice system
1. The state — the bar
For the state, the modern bar appears too autonomous, difficult to predict, and, most importantly, uncontrollable.
Lawyers do not fit into the logic of the administrative hierarchy. They are not agents of state policy and do not always behave “constructively” from the point of view of the authorities.
Hence the temptation to “streamline,” “modernize,” and “unify.”
In reality, this desire stems from a desire to reduce the unpredictability that independent lawyers create in the process and to take control of their procedural activities.
2. Society — the legal profession
In the public perception, lawyers remain key figures in the defense against the state or the law, and it is to lawyers that people turn when their rights are under real threat.
At the same time, the general perception of the legal profession as an institution is often formed not through personal experience of legal assistance, but through an assessment of the functioning of justice in general — its complexity, duration, and lack of transparency.
In public debate, this perception is often interpreted by the state as an argument in favor of reforming the legal profession, although in fact it is a broader issue of trust in the justice system as a whole, rather than distrust of lawyers as a profession.
3. The legal profession — the state
Lawyers, in turn, systematically distrust:
- pre-trial investigation bodies;
- the actual adversarial nature of the process;
- the court as an independent arbiter in each specific case.
As a result, lawyers often enter the process not as equal participants, but as parties forced to compensate for the absence of the supposedly guaranteed principle of adversarial proceedings with professional skill rather than procedural equality.
A strong bar is always inconvenient
There is a simple but uncomfortable truth: a strong bar always creates discomfort for the state, and a weak bar is always dangerous for citizens.
A strong lawyer questions, challenges, demands evidence and procedures. A weak one turns the right to defense into a formality.
This dilemma cannot be resolved by administrative means.
What really needs to change
Reform of the legal profession does not begin with new bodies or job titles.
It begins with:
- real, not declarative, competition;
- zero tolerance for pressure on lawyers;
- a judicial culture in which the position of the defense is equal;
- trust in professional ethics, rather than replacing it with control.
Without this, any changes will remain cosmetic.
Conclusion
Reform of the legal profession is possible and, in a sense, necessary. But only if it is based on restoring trust. Trust in the judicial system as a whole. All other scenarios are a struggle for control under the guise of modernization.
History shows that such experiments rarely end in favor of citizens. And this is probably the main risk of this whole conversation.
