Advocate Dmytro Yagunov Has Appealed to the Bar’s Self-Governing Bodies, Calling on Them to Take Steps to Salvage the Profession’s Reputation
Advocate Dmytro Yagunov has submitted a repeat appeal to the Bar Council of Ukraine, the Bar Council of Odesa Region, the Ukrainian National Bar Association and other bar self-governance bodies, demanding that they respond without delay to a systemic threat to the reputation of the legal community.
GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL: TWO NEW COURT RULINGS
The immediate occasion was two court rulings issued after the advocate’s initial appeal, which, in his view, not only confirm the concerns previously raised but also demonstrate that the problem is deepening.
Ruling of 1 June 2026 (Kyivskyi District Court of the City of Odesa, case No. 509/744/26). On the basis of the totality of the evidence gathered, the court once again established the fact that the documents relating to the vessel that is the subject of the dispute had been forged. In particular, the court confirmed that the “Vessel Technical Survey Act” of 15.11.2015 bears clear signs of forgery, since the person in whose name it was signed had died as far back as 10 July 2007 — that is, eight years before the purported date of signing. In addition, an expert examination established that the signatures in the “Vessel Sale and Purchase Agreement” of 14.02.2003 were formed from particles of toner, meaning that no actual signatures had been affixed.
Ruling of 4 June 2026 (Ovidiopolskyi District Court of Odesa Region, case No. 509/299/19). The court dismissed yet another motion by the advocate seeking the lifting of the arrest imposed on the disputed vessel. In substance, this motion is virtually identical to the one that the same representative had already been refused by a ruling of the same court on 10 February 2026.
FORGED DOCUMENTS ARE A BLOW — BUT SILENCE IS A GREATER ONE
Advocate Dmytro Yagunov stresses that the very fact that an advocate uses in court documents whose forgery has repeatedly and consistently been established by courts of various instances — including a document supposedly “signed” by a person eight years after their death — is a serious blow to the reputation of the legal profession.
However, a far greater threat to the authority of the legal community is the silent inaction of the bar self-governance bodies which, having been duly and repeatedly informed of these circumstances, refrain from responding on the merits.
