One of the most beloved items that law enforcement officers seize during searches as part of the investigation of white-collar crimes are smartphones and computer equipment. Clearly, they are interested not in the ‘hardware’ itself, but in the information it contains. However, there are certain restrictions regarding gadgets owned by lawyers.
It is worth noting that according to Articles 22 and 23 of the Law on Advocacy and Advocacy Activities, attorney-client privilege includes any information known to a lawyer, assistant lawyer, trainee lawyer, person in employment relationship with a lawyer, about the client, including the content of advice, consultations, explanations of the lawyer, documents prepared by him, information stored on electronic media, and other documents and information obtained by the lawyer during the provision of legal services.
It is directly prohibited by law to demand from a lawyer the provision of information that is covered by attorney-client privilege. It is also prohibited to inspect, disclose, demand, or seize documents related to the provision of legal services.
However, law enforcement officers do not always adhere to these rules and try to gain access to lawyers’ phones in any way, sometimes even demanding it through the court. However, recent judicial practice has clearly shown that such requests by prosecutors will be denied, as evidenced, in particular, by the Ruling of the Appeals Chamber of the Higher Anti-Corruption Court dated June 9, 2025, in case No. 991/3300/25.
The court considered in an open court session the appeals of representatives N. (lawyer of the Kyiv region) – lawyers Holovko Pavlo and Hrubskyi Andrii, filed against the ruling of the investigating judge of the Higher Anti-Corruption Court dated May 14, 2025, regarding the imposition of arrest on property in a certain criminal proceeding.
The appeals were partially granted, the ruling of the investigating judge of the Higher Anti-Corruption Court dated May 14, 2025, was overturned, and a new ruling was issued.
And although the prosecutor of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office’s motion for the arrest of property (Apple iPhone phone seized during a search at the lawyer’s place of residence) was granted, the prosecution was prohibited from ‘conducting an inspection of the seized mobile phone during the search process… without the presence of a representative of the Bar Association of the Kyiv region during the conduct of such procedural action, unless he has been informed of the date, time, and place of its conduct in the manner provided for notification of a search at a lawyer’s, but he did not arrive to participate in it’.
The ruling is final and cannot be appealed in cassation.