“THE LAWYER MONOPOLY” SHOULD IT BE MOVED?

Abstract

The article deals with the debate on the so-called “lawyer monopoly” on representation of interests in court. The Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine (on Justice)" adopted on June 2016, dated June 2, 2016, No. 1401-VIII literally divided the legal community into two camps: "for" and "against" the so-called "monopoly of the Bar". It should not be denied that both supporters of this reform and its opponents have strong arguments in favor of their beliefs. In the last four years, both camps have made new arguments in support of their point of view. But every year, since the passage of the aforementioned law, calls for change have become louder. This is due to the fact that, on the one hand, the aforementioned law introduced a gradual transition to representation in all judicial instances only by a lawyer and a prosecutor, and on the other, by the fact that the proposal to exclude the rule of “lawyer monopoly” from the Constitution of Ukraine was one of the first bills of President Vladimir Zelensky. Several steps have now been taken to abolish this "monopoly" but the whole path has not yet been completed. Thus, from January 1, 2020 the Law of Ukraine 390-IX “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Expanding the Possibilities of Self-Representation in the Court of State Authorities, Bodies of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Local Self-Government Bodies and Other Legal Entities, Whatever Their Order, came into force creation ”, but the bill announced by the President No. 1013 of 29.08.2019 still remains within the walls of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. This leads to some contradictions and inconsistencies in court cases regarding who can participate in litigation. In the article the author highlights the advantages and disadvantages of "lawyer's monopoly", as well as the problematic issues of the so-called transition period.