Review

The article is devoted to a comprehensive analysis of the legal and practical aspects of the defense counsel’s participation in criminal proceedings under Article 191 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine («Misappropriation, embezzlement, or acquisition of property through abuse of official position»). The author thoroughly examines the current state of legal regulation of the defender’s activity under the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 2012, identifies the peculiarities of procedural rights and obligations of defense counsel, and highlights key problems arising from their practical implementation. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of attorney investigation as an important mechanism for ensuring the adversarial principle and genuine equality of parties in criminal proceedings. The article explores issues related to attorney inquiries, obtaining information, and recognizing evidence independently collected by defense counsel. Additionally, the author analyzes specific features of legal regulation regarding defense counsel’s involvement in certain investigative actions, especially during identification procedures, revealing typical procedural violations committed by pre-trial investigation authorities. An essential part of the article is devoted to guarantees of attorney-client privilege and confidentiality. Based on an examination of Ukrainian judicial practice and standards established by the European Court of Human Rights (cases «Salduz v. Turkey,» «Michaud v. France», etc.), the author concludes that national legal guarantees for attorney-client confidentiality are insufficiently effective, posing genuine risks to the individual’s right to a fair trial. Furthermore, the author critically assesses Ukraine’s current model of lawyer monopoly, which limits the circle of individuals who can act as defenders. Drawing from the international experience of countries such as the USA, Poland, and Germany, the article substantiates the need to reconsider this approach and engage other legal professionals in criminal defense, thereby improving the quality of legal assistance and enhancing competition in the legal services market. The author formulates specific recommendations for improving Ukrainian criminal procedure legislation, which include clearer regulation of the defense counsel’s right to conduct independent investigations, strengthening legislative and procedural guarantees of attorney-client privilege, and ensuring proper conditions for effective collection and submission of evidence by defense counsel. The proposed changes aim to reinforce procedural guarantees for participants in criminal proceedings, enhance the effectiveness of defense counsel activities, and align Ukrainian criminal procedural law and judicial practice with international standards and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.