The National Association of Lawyers of Ukraine, in collaboration with leading research institutes of forensic expertise, organized a round table on expert support for legal practice.
The event, held in a hybrid format on May 2, featured scientists, forensic experts, and practicing lawyers as speakers. Over eight thousand lawyers participated in the round table.
A heated discussion arose during the opening speeches, as a number of systemic issues have accumulated in the field of judicial expertise, requiring urgent resolution.
The head of the NAAL, RAU Lidiia Izovitova, drew attention to one of the most acute problems in the field of judicial expertise, according to the legal community’s assessment: the failure of experts to differentiate between ‘source data’ and ‘professional information,’ with the latter mistakenly interpreted as a prohibition on independent data collection. Such a practice of self-limitation by experts leads to a reluctance to use open professional sources, including statistical data, market information, and technical standards, necessary for forming a well-founded, comprehensive expert opinion. This approach particularly harms complex economic, construction, and environmental expertise, where ignoring professional information not only reduces the quality of research but also directly contradicts the requirements of current expert activity standards. According to the NAAL leader, experts sometimes avoid critically analyzing the sufficiency of the materials provided, opening the door to manipulation by the parties involved and transforming expertise into a tool for creating evidence rather than investigating it. This violates the expert’s impartiality principle and the equality of the parties.
Another related issue is the proliferation of ‘nested’ expertise, where one expert’s conclusion is confirmed without independent analysis by another expert. This grossly violates the principle of direct examination and contributes to legitimizing preconceived positions. In both cases, the expert loses objectivity, and the conclusion loses evidentiary value. Therefore, Izovitova noted the need for legislative clarification regarding the permissibility of using open professional information and the introduction of guarantees preventing expertise from being used as a tool for evidence creation by one of the parties. This is necessary to preserve the expert’s autonomy, the adversarial process, and the protection of human rights, which are key conditions for the functioning of the rule of law.
The nuances of collecting source data and using professional information in judicial expertise were discussed by the director of the Ukrainian Scientific Research Institute of Special Equipment and Forensic Expertise of the Security Service of Ukraine, Yurii Chechil.
He reminded that in the field of commodity expertise, the investigator often provides contracts and price proposals, which the expert formally uses as a basis. However, in cases where the expert merely reproduces the provided data, a logical question arises: what then is the expert’s work? Chechil emphasized that such a role diminishes the expert’s significance. At the same time, he expressed support for experts using professional information, including market data, etc. Chechil separately noted that in practice, the approach to this issue often depends on the expert themselves.
The National Yaroslav the Wise Law University has been collaborating with expert institutions, universities, and lawyers for many years. Although not an expert institution, the university often prepares scientific-legal opinions for government bodies, influencing not only legislative but also law enforcement activities. The vice-rector for research at NYWU, Dmytro Luchenko, reported that in 2024, university researchers prepared scientific-legal opinions for requests from the Verkhovna Rada (131), the Supreme Court (106), and the Constitutional Court (53). The university also processed hundreds of requests from government bodies, law enforcement agencies, and local self-government bodies. The vice-rector noted that a significant number of scientific-legal opinions were prepared by the university for requests from lawyers. ‘Collaboration with the legal community constitutes a lion’s share of the work of our research sector,’ Luchenko remarked.
The director of the National Scientific Center ‘Institute of Forensic Expertise named after Merited Professor M.S. Bokarius’ of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, Serhii Tiulenev, confirmed the interest of defenders in specialized knowledge. He provided statistical data indicating that in 2024 and the first quarter of 2025, 290 expert examinations were conducted at the request of lawyers. ‘Most of the issues raised by lawyers in their requests concern the possibility of appointing expert examinations, the availability of experts, qualifications for specific types of expert examinations, examination deadlines, expert workload, as well as providing copies of the conclusions of the forensic expert or the methods used in conducting the examinations,’ explained the center’s head.
He also recalled a memorandum of cooperation recently signed with the NAAL, which has intensified lawyers’ activities. ‘This already shows greater trust in the Ministry of Justice’s actions, in line with what we are doing together,’ commented Tiulenev.
Addressing the issue of raising the professional level of expertise clients, the acting director of the Research Center for Independent Forensic Expertise of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, Andrii Svinchytskyi, proposed creating an educational course based on the results of the round table on the possibility of legally evaluating the materials encountered by clients seeking expertise. ‘We already have an ongoing course to enhance the qualifications of expertise clients. These are expert specialties in economic, construction-technical, computer-technical, phonoscopic expertise, compliance with state secrets, etc.,’ noted the head of the RCFIE. ‘We all need to raise our professional level because although everything is regulated, it is the industry experts who can provide this knowledge to clients within the framework of the educational course.’
The director of the Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, Maxym Kyselov, supported his colleague’s proposal. He expressed confidence that in criminal proceedings, as well as civil and commercial cases, it is necessary to rebuild cooperation to a qualitatively new level. ‘I come from the legal community myself and can say that expertise is quite complex in terms of formulating questions and obtaining the expected results. It is a specific field that requires expert involvement directly within the process,’ noted the director of the KSRIFE. ‘I believe that we need to gather more, communicate more, produce, and teach lawyers to work with experts because the expert is regulated, while the lawyer is more free, not subject to the same disciplinary responsibility.’
The issue of expert support for legal practice is extremely important and does not require proof of its relevance, according to the dean of the Faculty of Advocacy at NYWU named after Yaroslav the Wise, Volodymyr Shekhovtsov. To implement this, it is necessary to gradually establish a roadmap or roadmap for interaction and solving the tasks set. He also emphasized the need to create methodological guides and recommendations.
The dean announced plans to organize a traditional International Forum of Lawyers in Kharkiv at the end of the year, where the results of the round table could be presented in the form of methodological and scientific-practical advice for lawyers.