LCF Law Group Defended Client's Interests in Disciplinary Case on Conduct Under Occupation

The criminal law team of LCF Law Group successfully defended the client's interests in a complex disciplinary case: the Second Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice refused to hold the firm's client disciplinarily liable and closed the proceedings.

The Facts of the Case

The proceedings concerned the circumstances of a judge's presence on temporarily occupied territory at the beginning of the full-scale invasion. The complaint was filed by a regional prosecutor's office, which initiated a review alleging conduct that might discredit the judicial title or undermine the authority of justice. The only sanction that could be imposed following the review was a submission for dismissal from office.

The Defence Strategy

The LCF Law Group team built its defence on two key lines. The first involved refuting the sufficiency of the available evidence against the 'clear and convincing' standard, which is a mandatory prerequisite for imposing disciplinary liability. The second involved establishing the factual circumstances of the case through witness testimony — a precedent-setting approach for this category of cases.

Since the territory in question remains under occupation, the evidentiary record could be built almost entirely on testimony. At the hearing, witnesses confirmed that the judge not only upheld the judicial oath and ethical norms, but actively assisted the local community, refused any cooperation with the occupying structures, and paid for this with imprisonment and torture.

The Significance of the Case

This case combined challenges across multiple dimensions: legal uncertainty regarding the standards for evaluating conduct under occupation, a limited evidentiary base, and the extremely serious potential consequences for the client. The outcome confirms that a properly structured defence and a correctly formulated evidentiary strategy can secure a fair hearing even in the most sensitive categories of cases.

The client's interests were represented by Anastasiia Didenko, Counsel and Head of the Anti-Corruption & Compliance practice, and Mykhailo Protsailo, Senior Associate in the criminal law practice.