Andriy Miasets, the acting head of the Higher Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Advocacy (HKDCA), provided a detailed clarification on one of the most debated issues in legal practice: precisely when a defense attorney's failure to appear in court may be deemed a disciplinary offense. In an interview with the publication "Sudebno-yurydychna hazeta" (Judicial and Legal Gazette), referenced by RBC-Ukraine, Miasets emphasized that a single instance of non-appearance, in itself, does not constitute a violation. However, systematic failures to appear without valid reasons, as well as unjustified motions to adjourn hearings, may indicate a breach of the requirements of legal ethics and professional duties.

When Non-Appearance Becomes a Violation

According to Miasets, the subject of the Commission's assessment may include not only the very facts of the lawyer's absence from the courtroom, but also other actions by the defense attorney that, without sufficient grounds, lead to the delay of case proceedings. If, taken as a whole, the circumstances confirm the presence of the elements of a disciplinary offense, such conduct may become grounds for subjecting the lawyer to disciplinary liability in the established procedure. Thus, the HKDCA emphasizes: the key factor is not the formal fact of non-appearance, but its systemic nature and its impact on the course of the judicial process.

Systematicity as the Key Assessment Criterion

Miasets particularly stressed that the systematic nature of the cases is of significant importance when evaluating a lawyer's conduct. "The totality of non-appearances may indicate not a random violation, but a certain pattern of behavior by the lawyer and his or her dishonest attitude toward professional duties," he stated. In making its decision, the Commission takes into account a number of factors: the number of recorded cases, the specific reasons for non-appearance, the consequences for the case proceedings, as well as the lawyer's overall conduct. This approach allows distinguishing a one-off situation caused by objective circumstances from a persistent practice of evading participation in the proceedings.

A Valid Reason Does Not Cancel the Hearing

Separate clarification is required on the question of whether a lawyer's participation in another court proceeding is sufficient grounds for rescheduling a hearing. Miasets explained that such an engagement may be recognized as a valid reason for non-appearance if it is real and confirmed by proper evidence. However, according to him, merely referring to participation in another case is not an unconditional ground for adjourning the hearing. In other words, the lawyer is obliged to appear in court even if his or her absence from another proceeding was objective, and the question of rescheduling is decided by the court depending on the circumstances of the specific case.

Practical Context: the Case of Doctors from Odessa's Odrex Clinic

The issue of lawyers' disciplinary liability took on a practical dimension in the criminal proceedings against Vitaliy Rusakov and Maryna Bilotserkovska, doctors from Odessa's Odrex clinic. On September 10 and 11, 2026, the Kyiv District Court of Odessa was unable to continue hearing the case after Rusakov's lawyers once again filed a motion to reschedule the hearing, citing their participation in other court proceedings. Presiding judge Viktor Chaplitsky deemed the stated reasons invalid and announced that he would forward the corresponding ruling to the HKDCA for a decision on the disciplinary liability of the defense attorneys.

Nine Months of Proceedings and More Than a Dozen Adjourned Hearings

The trial of the Odessa doctors has been ongoing for more than nine months. During this period, more than a dozen hearings have been adjourned or failed to take place due to the non-appearance of the defense side or its procedural motions. As of September 19, 2026, the court is at the stage of examining evidence and is to proceed to hearing a medical expert. The situation vividly illustrates the theoretical principles outlined by the head of the HKDCA: it is precisely the totality of repeated non-appearances and motions that forms the very "pattern of behavior" that may be deemed a dishonest attitude toward professional duties.