Debatable questions of the lawyer’s responsibilities definition in the court: the foreign doctrine

Тетяна Борисівна Вільчик


Problem formulation. The recognition of a close connection between advocacy and judiciary, and providing some professional legal assistance to lawyers as a necessary condition for realization of judicial protection of the individual’s rights and freedoms, raise, in turn, a number of cooperation issues between lawyers and the court. These issues can have both legal and moral-psychological nature. Anyway, the answer to them can have importance both for functioning and development prospects of the legal profession and the judiciary. Therefore, it’s necessary to recognize the research importance of the effective ways of interaction between judges and lawyers in the sphere of ensuring the constitutional rights and freedoms, the place and role of advocacy as one of the human rights institutions of the society, which is an integral part of the state machinery of justice.

Analysis of recent research and publications. The issue of the advocacy legal status and its relationship with the judiciary were considered to some extent in the works of foreign and domestic scientists. However, firstly, most studies were conducted before the adoption of the recent changes in the legislation governing the advocacy activities, secondly, some individual studies of foreign legal doctrine to determine the duties of lawyers in the court, were not carried out. The aim of the article is the analysis of problematic issues of professional activity of the lawyer in the court from the point of view, how they are solved in the national legislation, scientific literature, international papers and in the foreign countries jurisprudence.

Presentation of the study main material. Some problematic issues of determining the essence of the lawyer’s legal status in the court, the ratio of his duties in respect to the court and his client, the lawyer’s immunity were studied on the basis of foreign legal literature analysis and judicial practice of the EU countries.

Conclusion. The conducted analysis of judicial decisions and scientific points of view leads to the following conclusions: 1) The legal status of lawyers is characterized by the fact that as participants in the proceedings, they take part together with the judges in the administration of justice. 2) Lawyers are an integral part of the administration of justice. 3) Lawyers should promote the efficient use of limited resources of the court. 4) The advocate’s duties in front of the court are of paramount importance and must be fulfilled even if a client gives a lawyer the opposite order. 5) Advocates should inform their client in time that their duty in front to the court is of paramount importance for the lawyer. 6) The lawyer’s duties include calling of the judge’s attention to any mistakes that he perhaps made. 7) Advocates should guide clients in litigation in the interests of promoting public confidence in the administration of justice


advocate; lawyer; advocate’s duties in the court; legal status of the lawyer; the lawyer client's rights; lawyer’s immunity; advocacy and judiciary

GOST Style Citations

1. Ziems v Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of NSW [Електронний ресурс]. –  Режим доступу: .

2. Про адвокатуру та адвокатську діяльність : Закон України від 05.07.2012 № 5076-VI3. [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:

3. Кравченко М. В. Щодо відповідальності адвокатів за порушення забов’язань за договором з надання правової допомоги // Юридичний вісник. – № 3 (32). – 2014. – С. 130-134.

4. Rondel v Worsley: United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions. – 227-228р. (Lord Reid) [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:

5. Gerard Brennan  Strength and perils: the Bar at the turn of the century’ (Speech delivered at the New South Wales Bar Association, Sydney, 30 November 2000) [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:;dn=705158518289610;res=IELHSS

6. Gianarelli v Wraith. A new advocates «immunity case» [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:

7. Марабуто Ф. Деонтология. Этико-юридические правила адвокатуры //Адвокат (газета). -2002.- № 11.- С. 4.

8. The duty owed to the court – sometimes forgotten (A speech delivered by the Hon. Marilyn Warren AC at the Judicial Conference of Australia Colloquium, Melbourne on 9 October 2009) [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:

9. Международные принципы, касающиеся независимости и подотчётности судей, адвокатов и прокуроров. – [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:,REFERENCE,ICJURISTS,,,52e64cf74,0.html

10. Загальний кодекс правил для адвокатів країн  Європейського Співтовариства (Прийнятий на пленарному засіданні у Страсбурзі в жовтні 1988  року) [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:

11. Rees v Bailey Aluminium Products Pty Ltd & Anor  [2008] [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:

12. Re Gruzman; ex parte the Prothonotary [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:

13. Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:

14. Bomanite Pty Ltd v Slatex Corp Aust Pty Ltd (1991) [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:

15. Victorian Bar Ethics Seminar, 23 July 2008. G.T. Pagone [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:

16. Ipp J.  «Lawyers Duties to the Court» (1998) [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:‎.

17. Robert Bell. Caroline Abella. Lawyers Duties to the Court [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:

18. Western Australian Barristers  Rules.- 28 May 2012[Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:’%20Rules%20_28%20May%202012_.pdf/

19. Halsbury’s Laws of England (2005 re-issue), vol 3(1) // Barristers, ‘Barrister’s Duties in Court’ [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:

20. Swinfen v Lord Chelmsford» : Swinfen v Lord Chelmsford Pollock CB // Halsbury’s Laws of England (2005 re-issue), vol 3(1) // Barristers, ‘Barrister’s Duties in Court’ [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:

21. DOrta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:

22. Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Conflict between the duty to the client and duty to the  сourt  By The Hon Justice Kenneth Martin,  Supreme Court of Western Australia (Bar Association of Queensland Annual Conference  Sunday, 4 March 2012 ) [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:

23. Arthur J.S Hall and Co. v. Simons and Barratt v. Ansell and Others v. Scholfield Roberts and Hill. United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions. [Електронний ресурс] – Режим доступу:

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Copyright (c) 2016

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ISSN 2224-9281