Disciplinary Practice of the Qualification and Disciplinary Commissions of the Ukrainian Bar Association in 2023: A Statistical Analysis

Based on monitoring of the disciplinary practice of regional Qualification and Disciplinary Commissions of the Ukrainian Bar (QDCs) in 2023, conducted by Bereza M. and Kuzishyn O. (April 2026), significant unevenness was identified both in the quantitative indicators of proceedings and in the qualitative parameters of the sanctions applied. The study covers data obtained through public information requests sent to all regional QDCs. It should be emphasized that the absence of data for certain commissions is due solely to the fact that those QDCs did not provide the requested information — whether through refusal, silence, or a claim of lack of quorum. Such commissions are not reflected in the tables.

The source of the statistics is the study by M. Bereza and Yaroslav Kuzishyn, “Incapacity, Opacity and Inefficiency: Key Challenges of the Bar’s Disciplinary System” (April 2026).

In total, the QDCs that responded received 970 complaints against lawyers during 2023. As a result of their examination, 276 disciplinary proceedings were opened, while the initiation of proceedings was refused in 446 cases (45.98% of the total number of complaints). 124 proceedings were closed; upon substantive review, 298 lawyers were held disciplinarily liable. These figures indicate that the vast majority of initial complaints do not result in disciplinary prosecution, while among cases brought to a substantive resolution, the rate of liability being imposed is relatively high.

The absolute leader in the number of complaints is the QDC of Kyiv Oblast (305 complaints), which is nearly three times higher than the next region — Poltava Oblast (118 complaints). At the same time, the QDC of Zaporizhzhia Oblast shows an anomalously low rate of proceedings opened despite an extremely high number of recorded sanctions (80), which warrants separate analysis and verification of the primary data.

STRUCTURE OF DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS AND THE PUNITIVENESS INDEX

Analysis of the structure of the disciplinary sanctions applied reveals qualitative differences in the punitive logic of individual QDCs, which is no less significant an indicator than the absolute number of liability cases. Of the total 298 sanctions, warnings account for 75 (25.17%), suspension of the right to practice law — 108 (36.24%), and disbarment — 31 (10.40%). This distribution indicates a predominance of medium-severity sanctions, though this overall picture conceals substantial inter-regional variation.

The central analytical tool of the study is the Punitiveness Index (PI) — an indicator reflecting the qualitative severity of a given body’s disciplinary practice, independent of the total volume of proceedings. The calculation formula is standardised:

PI = (n_medium × 1 + n_serious × 2) / (N × 2)

where n_medium is the number of medium-severity sanctions (suspension of the right to practice); n_serious is the number of the most severe sanctions (disbarment); N is the total number of sanctions. The theoretical range of the index runs from 0 (all sanctions are warnings) to 1.0 (all are disbarments). The weighting structure reflects the qualitative hierarchy of sanctions: a warning carries no weight; suspension carries a weight of 1; disbarment carries a weight of 2. The denominator N×2 normalizes the value to the range [0; 1].

A PI value in the range 0–0.25 indicates predominantly lenient disciplinary practice; 0.25–0.50 — moderate; 0.50–0.75 — elevated severity; above 0.75 — a harsh punitive logic.

ANALYSIS OF REGIONAL VARIATION

The data reveal three clearly distinct patterns of disciplinary behaviour among regional QDCs. The first group comprises bodies with lenient practice (PI < 0.25): the QDCs of Donetsk (0.182), Zhytomyr (0.000), Zaporizhzhia (0.000), Ivano-Frankivsk (0.083), Kirovohrad (0.235), Rivne (0.115), and Ternopil (0.000) Oblasts. Despite significant differences in the volume of proceedings, these bodies demonstrate restraint in applying severe sanctions.

The second group — with moderate practice (PI 0.25–0.50) — comprises the QDCs of Zakarpattia (0.500), Kyiv (0.385), Odesa (0.283), Kharkiv (0.447), and Chernivtsi (0.325) Oblasts. These commissions employ a diverse range of sanctions while maintaining a relative balance between lenient and severe measures.

Of greatest analytical interest is the QDC of Poltava Oblast (PI = 0.661), which falls into the elevated-severity category: of 31 sanctions, 19 are suspensions and 11 are disbarments, indicating a deliberate orientation towards severe measures. The QDC of Cherkasy Oblast stands apart with the maximum possible PI = 1.000: all 4 recorded sanctions are disbarments, though the small sample size calls for caution in generalising this finding. The mean PI across the available dataset is 0.285, corresponding to the lower boundary of moderate practice.