Unsurprisingly, most of the Buzz reported by Olga Prosyanyuk, the Managing Partner of Aver Lex in Ukraine, relates to trends in her own area of specialization. “As we are a criminal law practice boutique,” she says, “we’re keeping our eyes on all procedures going on in Ukraine in terms of criminal procedure.”
According to Prosyanyuk, the political turmoil in the country in recent years has created an inevitable whipsawing effect: “We have our own saying: ‘When new power comes, the previous one automatically becomes unlawful.’ This means that when power changes hands, the new regime immediately begins persecuting the previous members of parliament and state bodies.” As a result, she says, “criminal lawyers in a criminal practice have a lot to do.”
The current period is no exception, according to Prosyanyuk as “now, before the upcoming presidential elections, prosecutions in this field grow.” According to Prosyanyuk, “every day we have briefings, press conferences, and posts on Facebook and other social media about cases being brought or charges being considered by the prosecutor general or anti-corruption prosecutor. And there will be more. So the huge regime machine has started to work.” She doesn’t mince words about what’s behind this, describing it as “widespread politically-motivated criminal prosecution.”
And traditional full service firms in Ukraine are trying to get a piece of the action. “Even two years ago there were almost no criminal practices in multi-service firms, but because of these factors, we see the expansion of the practice.” Prosyanyuk doesn’t put much stock in their efforts, however. “These issues are very specific and sensitive, and even when they open these practices, they can afford only non-risky work that usually stops at the pre-trial stage. In transactions, or due diligence exercises, you can be flexible with associates and management. But complicated and political criminal cases can be tough and risky, and you need real experience. If tomorrow a corporate lawyer wanted to become a criminal advocate, that would be very risky for a client. Their freedom is at stake.” Her own firm, Prosyanyuk says, went the other way. “We decided to be a boutique, because we believe boutiques are the future, with specialization in discrete spheres. Maybe it’s not modest, but truthfully, we are the only firm specializing in political prosecution cases. So the trend is that the multi-service firms and the Big Four, in terms of complicated and difficult cases, come to us for help.”
Prosyanyuk reports that, in addition to the rapid appearance and then general disappearance of criminal practices in full service firms, another significant trend in the legal market for criminal defense lawyers is the increasing need for savvy social media and mass media skills. According to her, “the main fight is not in courts or in state bodies. The main fight is on Facebook and television. Early in the morning the prosecutor general is posting his or her views on facebook on this or that case, or hosting television press conferences. So defense attorneys are required to possess an additional skill: to work with mass media. Because if you fail in your mass media strategy you will fail your clients.” And Prosyanyk doesn’t mince words, describing these new skills as, “if anything, more important than legal skills.” She says that “if you monitor the most significant cases in Ukraine, you will see that they are conducted in mass media. So if an advocate fails in informative strategy, that will damage the client absolutely.”
The third significant trend Prosyanyuk describes is the increasing use of threats of violence or civil disruption to controversial criminal prosecutions. She describes one recent case in which, while the Pechersk District Court was deciding whether to convict the defendants, “the prosecutor general posted on Facebook that he was very concerned about the risks that if they were released violence would result.” She says, “that was shocking.” She goes on. “For another example, there is another procedure going on involving so-called ‘public activists’ who came to the court and disrupted everything in the court, requiring that the police be called.” Thus, she says, “another trend I can see is that when there is any court case which is very public and sensitive, the so-called ‘activists’ (actually military people with guns and huge numbers) crush everything and pressure the court to take this or that ruling against the people. So another trend is the use of so-called activists. Both those who stand and shout their disagreements — so called ‘peaceful’ activists — but they still come to the court room and disrupt everything there. For what? What is the purpose? And who is controlling them? Who gives them orders to do that?!”
“I want to be optimistic,” Prosyanyuk says, “but I’m always realistic at the same time. In a week we will have a very public case in court, and I’m really wondering whether this kind of situation will happen to us as well, and when the Maidan cases [the trial of former Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych, who her firm is defending] will be heard, we are not sure that the activists will not come to disrupt everything. And the current bodies of power want him to be found guilty. They don’t want to find out who really was guilty,” she says. “Or even more, they know who is guilty, and they don’t want the people to know the truth. They don’t want the true court procedure to play itself out. Because the facts will be shocking.”
Prosyanyuk takes a breath, and smiles. “Maybe I was very emotional, but it’s how I feel.”
