Oleksandr Leshchenko: defending business from the State is a paradox – yet it is our daily reality

In the annual “TOP 50 Law Firms of Ukraine 2026” survey traditionally published by Yurydychna Praktyka, an interview with the Managing Partner of LESHCHENKO & PARTNERS Oleksandr Leshchenko was released. In the conversation, he shared his vision of the transformation of the legal market, the role of a lawyer in wartime, and the firm’s key strategic development priorities.

— How does the Ukrainian legal market feel today?

— Today, the legal market is in a state of constant turbulence. Businesses are cautious, clients weigh every hryvnia, and priorities have shifted. Traditional practices — corporate law, M&A, investment law, intellectual property — have largely taken a back seat. The main demand now is for business protection, white-collar crime defense, sanctions disputes, and everything related to countering state pressure.

If earlier a lawyer was primarily a courtroom representative, today they are also a strategist, a crisis manager, and often even an analyst with an understanding of political processes. Unfortunately, we live in a time when businesses must be protected not from competitors, but from the state itself. That is the greatest paradox of our reality.

— You speak about defending business from the state. What is the main reason for this situation?

— Pressure comes from many directions: law enforcement agencies, tax authorities, ARMA, the Ministry of Justice. Formally, everything appears lawful — asset seizures, temporary confiscation, transfer of assets into management. But once you look deeper, you see abuse of authority, insufficient grounds, or simply attempts at administrative pressure.

At LESHCHENKO & PARTNERS, we constantly deal with cases where businesses are forced to defend themselves against unlawful actions by the state, even though the state should be the guarantor of property rights. This is the core paradox of the system. That is why today it is vital for businesses to have a permanent legal partner who understands not only legal norms but also the political context. Because any seizure, inspection, or even a letter from the tax authorities can mark the beginning of a much larger game.

— So business protection today goes beyond criminal cases?

— Business protection is a comprehensive strategy. It is not limited to criminal proceedings; it also includes commercial, administrative, tax, and even sanctions disputes. When criminal proceedings are initiated against a company, its assets are seized, and corporate rights are transferred to management, this is no longer merely a criminal matter. It is interference with business operations and property rights, leading to tax, corporate, and civil consequences.

That is why we build defense as a system where every element is part of a single chain: from challenging unlawful actions of investigators and state bodies, to contesting illegal decisions, restoring assets, lifting seizures, reinstating registration records, defending clients before the Ministry of Justice and courts, and, where necessary, in international jurisdictions. It was precisely from this practice that a separate sanctions disputes practice emerged.

When the state began to apply sanctions on a massive scale, it became clear that the mechanism is very similar: the same asset freezes, the same restrictions of property rights — only now under the banner of “protecting national security and interests.”

Sanctions and their application have become one of the most complex challenges of wartime. The number of disputes in this area has grown so rapidly in recent years that an independent sanctions disputes practice has effectively taken shape. Today, it largely defines the face of Ukrainian justice in times of war. Sanctions decisions affecting ownership, management, and economic security have become a litmus test of the legal system’s maturity and its ability to uphold the rule of law even in a period of crisis.

— Sanctions have indeed become one of the most acute topics of recent years. How do you assess Ukrainian sanctions legislation?

— In my view, it does not yet withstand serious criticism.

Sanctions are applied too broadly and often without proper evidence. The law contains extremely vague grounds, which creates room for abuse. There is virtually no mechanism for proving guilt: a person or company is placed on a sanctions list, and that’s it. Afterwards, they must prove on their own that they do not pose a threat. This contradicts fundamental principles of justice.

We do not dispute the state’s right — or obligation — to protect national security and national interests. But even in wartime, there are legal limits. And if the state cannot demonstrate substantiated reasons, fails to provide evidence, and does not allow a person to be heard, this is no longer about security — it is interference with property rights and other fundamental freedoms.

— What strategic development priorities do you define for LESHCHENKO & PARTNERS in the coming years?

— For us, development is not about the number of cases, but about the quality of solutions and the depth of expertise. We strive to remain a firm that not only reacts to change but anticipates it and sets new market standards.

Today’s legal market requires not narrow specialization, but systemic and strategic thinking. That is why we develop a multidisciplinary model covering more than 15 practices — from criminal, commercial, and administrative law to sanctions disputes, anti-corruption cases, and international justice. This allows us to view each case holistically, think on a broader scale, and see beyond the boundaries of a single field.

In today’s realities, clients expect not merely courtroom representation, but an integrated strategy of defense and risk management. This is exactly how we structure our work — from comprehensive analytics to concrete results.

A separate strategic focus for us is the development of legal lobbying. After the adoption of the Law of Ukraine “On Lobbying,” legitimate frameworks were finally established for an activity that until recently was perceived as a “grey zone.” We see enormous potential here for businesses that seek to influence public policy openly, professionally, and within the rule of law.

LESHCHENKO & PARTNERS is building a team for legal and analytical support of lobbying initiatives — from drafting regulatory proposals and legal analysis to transparent communication with public authorities. After the war, I believe this practice will become one of the key ones: business must not only recover, but also participate in shaping clear and transparent rules of the game.

For us, this is the evolution of the lawyer’s role. We see our mission not only in defense, but also in creating conditions in which business and the state interact transparently, professionally, and in a civilized manner.

— Challenging the state is difficult even in peacetime. What risks do lawyers face today when taking on such cases?

— It is always a challenge. When you stand on the side of business or an individual in disputes with state authorities, you are effectively opposing a system that has far greater resources and influence. The risks are real — from pressure and attempts at discreditation to violations of attorney–client privilege. Unfortunately, recent years have shown that pressure on lawyers has become more tangible than before.

We encounter cases where attempts are made to “tie” a lawyer to their client, questioning their neutrality. When you defend a person in a complex or high-profile case, you are often perceived as “the lawyer of a criminal,” rather than as a guarantor of procedural balance. This is a dangerous trend, because it undermines the very essence of the legal profession — the right of everyone to defense.

Recently, the Verkhovna Rada adopted a law that explicitly prohibits identifying a lawyer with their client. This is an important step that legislatively enshrines an obvious but long-ignored principle: a lawyer is not a party to a crime, and their position cannot be interpreted as endorsement of a client’s actions.

However, a law is only a framework. Real impact will come from its application in practice. We will see whether law enforcement agencies, courts, and society can accept this norm as part of legal culture. If it truly works, it will be a significant step toward strengthening the independence of the legal profession and restoring trust in the justice system.

Society must finally realize that a lawyer does not defend a crime — a lawyer defends the right to a fair trial. And if we lose this understanding, the state will cease to be governed by the rule of law.