Proportionality as an Exception: the Bar’s Qualification and Disciplinary Commission Between Leniency and Severity

The Punitiveness Index (PI) measures the qualitative severity of disciplinary practice:

PI = (nsuspensions × 1 + ndisbarments × 2) / (N × 2)

Range: 0 — exclusively warnings; 1.0 — exclusively disbarments.

Zones:

• 0–0.25 — lenient practice
• 0.25–0.50 — moderate practice
• 0.50–0.75 — elevated severity
• above 0.75 — harsh practice

OVERALL DYNAMICS

Over the three years under review, the overall Punitiveness Index showed notable but non-linear dynamics.

In 2023, the overall PI stood at 0.285, corresponding to the lower boundary of the moderate zone.

In 2024, it declined to 0.253 — the lowest value across the entire study period, effectively approaching the boundary between lenient and moderate practice.

In 2025, a substantial increase to 0.353 was recorded — the highest value over three years — clearly marking a shift toward the middle of the moderate zone.

The overall PI dynamic is thus non-linear: after the decline of 2024, a sharp spike occurred in 2025, the causes of which are determined primarily by the behaviour of individual regional commissions.

REGIONAL VARIATION AND PERSISTENT PATTERNS

Inter-regional differentiation is a fundamental characteristic of the disciplinary system: the range of PI values across regions in each of the three years is significantly wider than the system-wide indicator. Only the QDCAs of Kharkiv, Poltava, Chernivtsi, Odesa and Kyiv oblasts were present in the sample throughout all three years with a calculated PI, enabling full dynamic analysis.

The most radical trajectory is demonstrated by the QDCA of Kharkiv Oblast: 0.447 in 2023 (moderate zone), 0.065 in 2024 (lenient zone), and 0.653 in 2025 (elevated severity). The amplitude of variation exceeds 0.58 points — the highest among all regions. Such a sharp increase to 0.653 in 2025 is explained by the dominance of the most serious sanctions: 97 suspensions and 52 disbarments out of 154 sanctions, meaning warnings constituted a negligible minority.

A diametrically opposite dynamic is observed in the QDCA of Poltava Oblast: 0.661 in 2023 (elevated severity, second only to Cherkasy), 0.206 in 2024 and 0.153 in 2025. Poltava Oblast completed a full transition from elevated-severe to lenient practice, with a consistent downward trend throughout the entire period.

The QDCA of Chernivtsi Oblast shows the opposite tendency — gradual but consistent growth: 0.325 → 0.375 → 0.450. Starting from the moderate zone, the commission is approaching its upper boundary. The QDCA of Odesa Oblast also shows slight growth: 0.283 → 0.275 → 0.354, albeit with a characteristic dip in 2024.

The QDCAs of Rivne and Ternopil oblasts exhibit sharp single-year anomalies. Rivne: 0.115 (2023) → 0.489 (2024) → 0.070 (2025). The 2024 spike was caused by a significant number of suspensions (32) and disbarments (7), but in 2025 the commission returned to lenient practice. Ternopil: 0.000 (2023) → 0.000 (2024) → 0.438 (2025) — a sharp jump after two years of exclusively issuing warnings.

The QDCAs of Kyiv and Kirovohrad oblasts, despite regular presence in the sample, show no clear directional vector. Kyiv fluctuates within a narrow range of the moderate zone (0.266–0.385); Kirovohrad more sharply: 0.235 → 0.208 → 0.500, though 2025 is statistically unreliable due to the minimal sample size (N=1).

Table 1. Punitiveness Index of QDCAs in 2023

Table 2. Punitiveness Index of QDCAs in 2024

N/A — calculation not possible: the QDCA initiated proceedings but imposed no sanctions (N=0). Only QDCAs that responded to the information request specifying the number of sanctions by type are included in the sample.

Table 3. Punitiveness Index of QDCAs in 2025

* QDCA Kirovohrad Oblast: N=1, PI value of 0.500 is statistically unreliable due to minimum sample size.

Table 4. Comparison of Punitiveness Index Across Three Years

The table includes only QDCAs that provided calculated data on the structure of sanctions in two or more years.

Table 5. Average Punitiveness Index 2023–2025 (descending)

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the Punitiveness Index for 2023–2025 reveals three key patterns.

First, the system-wide PI increases in 2025 primarily due to the sharp intensification of punitive logic in the QDCAs of Kharkiv and — to a lesser extent — Ternopil oblasts.

Second, no regional commission exhibits a consistent unidirectional dynamic, indicating that changes in disciplinary practice across most regions are situational rather than institutional in character.

Third, a significant proportion of QDCAs do not provide sufficient temporal coverage, which is itself an independent indicator of the structural opacity of the disciplinary system.

The overall PI of 0.353 for 2025, while still within the moderate zone, is the highest value recorded over three years and warrants attention in the context of ensuring the principle of proportionality in disciplinary sanctions.

The picture presented here is deliberately incomplete: the sample includes only those QDCAs that responded to information requests specifying the structure of imposed sanctions. Responsibility for this incompleteness lies entirely with the bar system, which has yet to ensure public access to consolidated disciplinary statistics. Despite this limitation, the data obtained provide a sufficient basis for analysing existing trends and should serve as the baseline reference point for any further research into disciplinary practice in Ukraine.