Ukraine’s Bar Reform and the Investor Test: Why the Quality of the Legal Profession Is a Question Not Only of Lawyers, but of Postwar Capital

For more than four years, Ukraine has fought to defend its territory and sovereignty. During this time, it has also been rebuilding its justice system to meet European Union standards and prepare for eventual membership. But a question is emerging: will legal reform strengthen the institutions on which reconstruction depends, or will it become a mechanism that weakens the independence of those who defend clients' rights?

One of the key voices in this discussion is Andriy Yermak, Chair of the Ukrainian National Bar Association (UNBA) Committee for the Protection of Victims of Armed Aggression against Ukraine, Compensation Mechanisms and European Integration Legal Support for Recovery. He also initiated "Advokat+", a nationwide legal support initiative for Ukrainian service members and their families. His position rests on a simple premise: the quality of the legal profession is directly linked to whether investors will trust Ukraine.

Reconstruction needs more than money

Public assistance alone cannot finance Ukraine's recovery, and private investment will have to play a growing role. American companies are likely to be active in energy, infrastructure, technology, defense, manufacturing, and financial services.

But long-term investors need confidence that contracts will be enforced, regulators can be challenged, and disputes can be resolved through institutions they trust. For the legal system, this is a test that no amount of external funding can pass on its behalf.

A working group of 27 and a single seat

Under the government's Rule of Law Roadmap, Ukraine is expected to adopt a new Law on the Bar and Legal Practice by the end of 2026. The reform is meant to modernize the profession, strengthen accountability and bring it closer to European practice, while responding to digitalization, including the rapid adoption of AI.

The composition of the working group preparing the reform raises questions. It has 27 members, and only one seat is allocated to the UNBA. This is not a technical detail. An independent legal profession cannot be effectively regulated without meaningful participation from the profession itself.

Yermak would judge the reform by what it produces, not by the working group's makeup. In his view, the process has to take competing views into account, proposals need comparative evidence behind them, and the final law must protect the independence and effectiveness of lawyers.

The lawyer is the investor's point of contact with the system

Discussions of rule-of-law reform usually focus on judges, prosecutors and anti-corruption institutions. They are essential, but businesses and individuals experience the legal system through the lawyers who advise and represent them.

An American company in Ukraine will deal with contracts, licenses, taxation, regulatory decisions, public procurement and commercial disputes. It may face a disagreement with a Ukrainian counterparty, an adverse regulatory decision or a claim arising from damage to its property. Investors do not expect to eliminate such risks. They expect to understand their rights and obtain an independent remedy.

For that, a lawyer must be able to challenge a regulator, contest a tax assessment or defend a client against the state without compromising professional independence. That requires lawyers who are free to represent clients, protected by legal privilege and accountable to credible professional standards.

This connects to the work of Yermak's UNBA committee, which deals with compensation mechanisms for victims of Russian aggression and legal support for Ukraine's recovery and European integration. Damage claims, reconstruction contracts and compensation procedures all depend on lawyers able to work across Ukrainian law, European regulation and international mechanisms.

Business under fire, law under pressure

Since the start of the war, the risks for foreign business in Ukraine have grown, and this has raised the importance of a legal profession that enjoys trust at the international level. As Yermak notes, in Kyiv the first McDonald's, opened back in 1997, and the Coca-Cola plant, in operation since 1998, were hit by Russian strikes. Despite the damage to physical assets, legal and commercial relationships kept functioning, and this is where the strength of legal work in wartime should lie.

The war has also created a huge volume of legal work. Through "Advokat+", initiated by Yermak, Ukrainian attorneys help service members and their families with legal procedures, applications and complaints, many of them pro bono. The initiative shows why an independent and capable bar matters in everyday life, not only in commercial disputes.

A profession designed for the AI era

The reform comes at a moment when the practice of law itself is changing. AI is already reshaping legal research and document review. In postwar Ukraine, lawyers may need to work simultaneously across Ukrainian law, EU regulation, sanctions, international arbitration, reconstruction contracts and enormous bodies of evidence.

This creates an unusual opportunity: to design the profession for the next decade rather than modernize a model built for an earlier era. New lawyers will need to use AI effectively, protect confidential information and retain professional judgment as technology grows more capable.

There is no single European model

Modernization should not be an end in itself. The reform must protect professional independence, self-governance, legal privilege and access to justice while strengthening accountability and transparency. These goals do not contradict each other: a profession can become more accountable without becoming less independent.

In Yermak's view, serious comparative analysis is needed to find the right balance between accountability and independence. No single European model of the legal profession can be copied in Ukraine: EU member states differ in professional governance, admission to the profession, disciplinary liability, and oversight. Different models can serve as a reference point, but they should not dictate a single correct solution.

What needs to be done?

First, the UNBA and the wider profession should take a real part in drafting, so the bar's institutional experience shows up in the final text. The comparative analysis behind the draft law should be public: which European models were examined, why specific solutions were chosen, and how they fit Ukraine.

Second, the law should guarantee professional independence, self-governance, and legal privilege, since lawyers need them to challenge regulators and defend clients against the state. Accountability and transparency mechanisms should be built so they cannot become a tool of pressure on lawyers.

Third, the law and professional standards should cover AI: training, protection of confidential information, and the lawyer's responsibility for professional judgment.

The bar reform will show whether Ukraine can build the legal infrastructure it needs to attract foreign capital, integrate with European markets, and rebuild after the largest war in Europe in generations. That means a bar that is both accountable and independent. For American businesses, the result will decide whether Ukraine looks like an opportunity or a risk.