---
title: "HKDCA Clarifies When a Lawyer's Failure to Appear in Court Constitutes Grounds for Disciplinary Liability"
description: "The HKDCA clarified: a single instance of a lawyer's non-appearance is not an offense, but systematic non-appearances and unjustified motions to reschedule hearings may result in disciplinary liability."
date: 2026-09-18T07:52:01.000Z
lang: en
url: https://xab.info/en/posts/hkdca-lawyer-non-appearance-disciplinary-liability
tags: [lawyer-disciplinary-responsibility, ukraine-courts, vkdka, odessa-trial, bar-association-ethics]
publisher: "XAB.info"
---

# HKDCA Clarifies When a Lawyer's Failure to Appear in Court Constitutes Grounds for Disciplinary Liability

![Lawyer in a business suit working on a laptop: VKDKA clarifies disciplinary liability for failure to appear in court](https://xab.info/media/2026/09/19/vkdka-neyavka-advokata-disciplinarnaya-otvetstvennost/vkdka-neyavka-advokata-disciplinarnaya-otvetstvennost-1.webp)

## 🎯 Key Points

- A single instance of a lawyer's failure to appear in court does not constitute a disciplinary offense; however, systematic non-appearances and unjustified motions to reschedule hearings may become grounds for an inquiry.
- In assessing a lawyer's conduct, the HKDCA takes into account the number of cases, the reasons, the consequences for the case, and the overall pattern of the defense attorney's behavior.
- Participation in another court proceeding may be a valid reason for non-appearance, but it is not an unconditional ground for adjourning a hearing.
- A practical precedent arose in the case of doctors from Odessa's Odrex clinic, where the judge forwarded a ruling to the HKDCA after more than a dozen adjourned hearings over nine months of proceedings.

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.

## 🔍 Fact-Check Verification

- [When a Lawyer's Non-Appearance Is Grounds for Disciplinary Liability: An HKDCA Explanation](https://www.rbc.ua/ukr/news/koli-neyavki-advokata-e-pidstavoyu-distsiplinarnoyi-1789667044.html) - Интервью в.и.о. главы ВКДКА А. Месяца «Судебно-юридической газете». Содержит прямые цитаты по критериям оценки систематичности, уважительности причин и практическому контексту дела одесских врачей. Данные о заседаниях 10–11 сентября 2026 г. и стадии процесса согласованы с основным текстом.

## ❓ FAQ

### Q: Is a single instance of a lawyer's failure to appear in court a disciplinary offense?
**A:** No. According to the clarification by Andriy Miasets, acting head of the HKDCA, a single non-appearance, in itself, does not constitute a disciplinary offense. The grounds for an inquiry are precisely the systematic nature of the non-appearances and unjustified motions to adjourn hearings.

### Q: Can a lawyer's participation in another court proceeding be a reason for rescheduling a hearing?
**A:** Participation in another proceeding may be recognized as a valid reason for non-appearance if it is real and confirmed by evidence. However, the mere reference to participation in another case is not an unconditional ground for adjourning the hearing — this is decided by the court.

### Q: What factors does the HKDCA consider when assessing a lawyer's conduct?
**A:** The Commission takes into account the number of non-appearance cases, the specific reasons, the consequences for the case proceedings, as well as the lawyer's overall conduct. The key criterion is systematicity: the totality of non-appearances may indicate a pattern of behavior and a dishonest attitude toward one's duties.

### Q: What practical case led to a ruling being forwarded to the HKDCA?
**A:** In the criminal proceedings against Vitaliy Rusakov and Maryna Bilotserkovska, doctors from Odessa's Odrex clinic, the Kyiv District Court of Odessa on September 10–11, 2026, was unable to continue the hearing due to the defense's latest motion to reschedule. Judge Viktor Chaplitsky deemed the reasons invalid and forwarded the ruling to the HKDCA. Over nine months of proceedings, more than a dozen hearings were adjourned.