Is it possible to demand the replacement of a free lawyer: the Supreme Court has made a decision

A person to whom the state has appointed a lawyer to provide free secondary legal aid cannot demand his replacement solely for personal reasons. The Supreme Court explained how the right to free choice of a lawyer differs from receiving legal aid at state expense.

Why did the accused demand a replacement lawyer

The courts of first and appellate instances found the man guilty of a criminal offense under Part Five of Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

During the cassation appeal, the defense claimed a violation of the accused’s right to defense.

In particular, the lawyer argued that the court of first instance unlawfully refused to replace the appointed lawyer, whose position the accused did not agree with.

According to the defense, such a decision contradicted the provisions of Article 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulates the issue of refusal of a lawyer and his replacement.

What the Supreme Court decided

The Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court did not agree with the arguments of the defense and left the decisions of the previous instances unchanged.

The judges emphasized that the right to replace a lawyer is directly related to the ability of a person to independently choose a defense attorney.

However, the legislation distinguishes between the legal relationship between a client and a lawyer engaged on a contractual basis and the provision of free secondary legal aid.

According to Part One of Article 13 of the Law of Ukraine “On Free Legal Aid”, such aid is a state guarantee aimed at ensuring equal access of citizens to justice.

In cases provided for by Article 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine, a lawyer is appointed by a relevant procedural decision of an authorized body or court.

Therefore, a recipient of free legal aid does not have the same right to freely choose a specific lawyer as a person who independently concludes a contract with a defense attorney.

Under what circumstances is it possible to replace a defense attorney

The Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine does not provide for the possibility of replacing or removing a defense attorney appointed to provide free secondary legal aid by the court solely due to the personal unwillingness of the accused to cooperate with him.

At the same time, the legislation provides for the procedure for challenging a defense attorney in accordance with Article 78 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine.

Thus, a personal disagreement with a defense attorney in itself is not a sufficient basis for his replacement by the court. In order to apply the procedural mechanisms provided for by law, it is necessary to have appropriate legal grounds.

Significance of the decision for judicial practice

The Supreme Court’s resolution clarifies the limits of exercising the right to defense in criminal proceedings and the features of receiving free legal aid.

The court actually distinguished between two legal situations: independent selection of a defense attorney on a contractual basis and appointment of a defense attorney at the expense of the state.

At the same time, the right to free legal aid remains guaranteed by the state, but does not provide for the unconditional possibility of demanding from the court the appointment of another lawyer for personal reasons.

The relevant legal position is set out in the resolution of the panel of judges of the Third Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court dated August 5, 2026 in case No. 216/7928/24, proceedings No. 51-1046km26.