A Ukrainian lawyer's choice of types to improve his qualifications through the prism of the implementation of the constitutional right to education

Abstract

This article is devoted to the disclosure of issues related to the clarification of the legal nature of the lawyer's obligation to improve his professional level through the prism of research into the essence of possible types of such improvement.
 Within the framework of this article, the position of the domestic legislator is disclosed, and various approaches of scientists to the definition of types of professional development of lawyers are also investigated. The position is argued, according to which the Procedure for Improving the Qualifications of Ukrainian Lawyers provides for a fairly voluminous sample list of possible types of improvement of their professional level. It is emphasized that the need for the existence of a list of types (measures) of lawyers' professional development, which is quite significant in terms of its scope, is due not only to the multifaceted nature of their possible professional activity and a fairly significant number of Ukrainian lawyers, but also directly based on the need to take into account the needs of lawyers, especially their interest in acquiring practical skills, while ensuring, on the one hand, freedom in choosing the specified measures, and on the other hand, the efficiency and continuity of the process of raising the lawyer's professional level.
 At the same time, a conclusion is made about the necessity of legislative expansion of the types of improvement of the lawyer's professional level, indicating some of the possible types. The essence of some of these types is revealed and attention is drawn to the positive emphasis on the practical direction of events organized by operators of professional development of lawyers (seminars, conferences, trainings, etc.) and their quality improvement.
 In order to achieve the set goal and reveal the set tasks, the author used the methods characteristic of legal science. The research was conducted primarily using the system-structural method, the comparative-legal and dialectical method of learning legal reality.