Community Engagement for Ethical Digital Justice: Practical Standards for Online Hearings and Electronic Evidence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15294/jphi.v9i2.51686Keywords:
Digital Judiciary, Judicial Ethics, Legal Ethics, Online Hearings, ConfidentialityAbstract
The rapid digitalization of judicial systems has transformed legal practice by expanding the use of online hearings, electronic evidence, and digital communication, while creating new ethical challenges for judges and lawyers. Existing ethical frameworks in Ukraine provide only general guidance and do not adequately address the complexities of digital justice. This study aims to identify the principal ethical issues arising from digital litigation and to develop a unified framework of digital ethics for judges and lawyers based on international best practices and the Ukrainian legal context. The research employs a qualitative methodology combining doctrinal legal analysis, comparative legal analysis, and general scientific methods, including analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy, and generalization. National legislation, judicial ethics codes, international standards, and relevant case law were examined to assess current regulatory gaps and identify effective approaches to digital judicial ethics. The findings reveal significant shortcomings in the regulation of online hearings, electronic evidence, lawyer–client confidentiality, digital competence, transparency, and the use of artificial intelligence in judicial proceedings. The study proposes a unified minimum standard of digital ethics that integrates procedural safeguards, ethical principles, and comparative international practices to enhance consistency, fairness, and public confidence in digital justice. The novelty of the research lies in developing an interdisciplinary framework that systematically links ethical challenges with practical regulatory solutions through a problem–solution–impact model, offering a comprehensive basis for the modernization of judicial and legal ethics in Ukraine. The proposed framework supports the development of a transparent, accountable, and technologically resilient justice system. The framework also identifies the institutions responsible for implementation and links digital-ethics reform to access to justice, public legal education, and inclusive participation in remote proceedings.
References
Afzal, J. “Best Practice of Digital Laws and Digital Justice.” In Implementation of Digital Law as a Legal Tool in the Current Digital Era, 95–120. Singapore: Springer Nature, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-7106-6_5.
Bielov, D. M., and M. V. Bielova. “Artificial Intelligence in Justice and Judicial Decisions: Potential and Risks.” Scientific Bulletin of Uzhhorod University: Law Series 78, no. 2 (2023): 315–20. https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2023.78.2.50.
Blazhko, V., and I. Osipova. “Advocacy Ethics in the Conditions of the Digitalization of Justice: Between Tradition and Innovation.” Edited by S. Yurko. Cherkasy: ChDTU, 2025.
Case No 908/1264/18 (2019). https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/85470804.
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Guidelines on Electronic Evidence in Civil and Administrative Proceedings. 2019. https://rm.coe.int/guidelines-on-electronic-evidence-and-explanatory-memorandum/1680968ab5.
Congress of Judges of Ukraine. Code of Judicial Ethics. 2013. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/rada/show/n0001415-13?lang=en#Text.
Congress of Lawyers of Ukraine. Rules of Advocate Ethics. 2017. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/rada/show/n0001891-17?lang=en.
Da Silva, E. B., and A. Gani. “Ethics and Social Responsibility in Technology Innovation for Sustainability and Social Justice.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 1, no. 2 (2022): 44–49.
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice. Guide on the Use and Development of Remote Hearings. 2025. https://rm.coe.int/cepej-2025-3-en-guide-for-remote-hearings-2763-8911-6430-1/1680b6bb7b.
Haraschuk, V., Y. Zelinska, V. Spasenko, and I. Shulga. “Information Component of the Environmental Policy of Ukraine: Current Status and Development Potential.” European Journal of Sustainable Development 9, no. 2 (2020): 69–79. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2020.v9n2p69.
Koltun, Yu. M. “The Integrity of the Use of Social Media by Judges: The Problems of Adaptation of the Legislation to the Requirements of the Digital Society.” Herald of Lviv University of Trade and Economics. Legal Sciences 16 (2024): 5–10. https://doi.org/10.32782/2616-7611-2024-16-01.
Kostruba, A. V., and V. A. Vasylyeva. “Termination of Right in the Mechanism of Civil Legal Relations.” Rivista Di Studi Sulla Sostenibilita 1 (2020): 287–300. https://doi.org/10.3280/RISS2020-001017.
Kotliarova, I. Yu. “The Digital Era of Legal Activity: Challenges, Prospects, and Legal Limits of the Transformation of Legal Work.” Current Problems of Law: Theory and Practice 49 (2025): 153–70. https://doi.org/10.33216/2218-5461/2025-49-1-154-170.
Kravtsova, T., Y. Neklyaev, and M. Korniienko. “Amendments to the Civil Procedure Code Regarding Mandatory Registration and Use of Electronic Accounts in the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System.” 2023. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=78f14c9b-3294-4dab-975e-b05902a0f73a.
Kutovyi, O., and S. Burma. “Artificial Intelligence in the Practice and Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.” Ehrlich’s Journal 12 (2025): 34–44. https://doi.org/10.32782/ehrlichsjournal-2025-12.05.
Lavrivskyi, V. V. “The Genesis of Legal Ethics: Stages and Features.” Bulletin of the Humanities, no. 7 (2025). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15503309.
Nakonechna, I. V., and A. Yu. Kovalchuk. “Challenges for National Judicial Systems Related to Forming Unified Standards for the Involvement of Artificial Intelligence.” Scientific Innovations and Advanced Technologies 3, no. 43 (2025): 547–85. https://doi.org/10.52058/2786-5274-2025-3(43)-574-585.
Nikitina, D., O. Vorobiova, O. Stepanova, and V. Sokolik. “Digital Identity and the Legal Status of Artificial Intelligence: Prospects for Normative Consolidation.” UNIVERSUM 20 (2025): 209–22.
Pascar, A. “Ethical Aspects of Using Artificial Intelligence in Justice: The Path to Ensuring Human Rights.” Ehrlich’s Journal, no. 7 (2023): 68–75. https://doi.org/10.32782/ehrlichsjournal-2023-7.10.
Pleskanka, O. V. “The Use of Digital Technologies in E-Justice.” Precarpathian Legal Bulletin 1, no. 54 (2024): 80–83. https://doi.org/10.32782/pyuv.v1.2024.15.
Reiling, D., and F. Contini. “E-Justice Platforms: Challenges for Judicial Governance.” International Journal for Court Administration 13, no. 1 (2022): 6. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.445.
Sereda, O., V. Mamnitskyi, P. Kornieva, and I. Cherevatenko. “New Steps of Digitalisation of Civil Justice in Ukraine.” Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 7, no. 1 (2024): 416–26. https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-7.1-n000118.
Stetsiuk, N. V., V. M. Parasiuk, and I. V. Zdrenyk. “Development of the Deontological Foundations of Professional Activity of Participants in Judicial Proceedings in the Conditions of Digitalization of Justice.” Scientific Bulletin of Uzhhorod National University. Law Series 5, no. 86 (2024): 194–99. https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2024.86.5.29.
Tashian, R. I., Y. S. Tavolzhanska, O. V. Tavolzhanskyi, S. V. Grynchak, and N. V. Smetanina. “Scientific Doctrine as a Source of Law in International Law and Legal Systems of the World.” Revista Juridica Portucalense, 2023, 232–52. https://doi.org/10.34625/issn.2183-2705(ne)2023.ic-12.
Ukrainian National Bar Association. “Are Common Ethical Rules for Judges, Advocates and Prosecutors Possible?” 2024. https://en.unba.org.ua/activity/news/9060-are-common-ethical-rules-for-judges-advocates-and-prosecutors-possible.html.
Downloads
Published
Article ID
51686Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Volodymyr Shekhovtsov, Yuriy Hofman , Yuliia Fidria , Ihor Bylytsia , Inna Kovalchuk (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). All writings published in this journal are personal views of the author and do not represent the views of this journal and the author’s affiliated institutions.
