Conflict of Interest and Duty of Abstention: Commentary on Judgment No. 20881 of 2024

Judgment No. 20881 of July 26, 2024, represents an important step forward in the regulation of lawyer liability, particularly regarding the duty of abstention in situations of conflict of interest. The Court of Cassation, in the ruling under examination, confirmed the decision of the National Bar Council, emphasizing the need for a rigorous application of ethical rules, especially in family law contexts.

The Regulatory Context

In analyzing the judgment, it is essential to consider the reference rules, particularly Article 24, paragraph 5, of the Bar Ethical Code. This article establishes that, in the event of a conflict of interest, the lawyer must abstain from assisting one of the parties involved. The Court clarified that this obligation also applies when the lawyers assisting the parties are members of the same professional association or collaborate professionally.

The Maxim of the Judgment

Duty of abstention under Article 24, paragraph 5, of the Ethical Code - Applicability to the hypotheses referred to in Article 68, paragraph 4, of the Code - Existence - Basis - Case. Regarding the disciplinary responsibility of the lawyer, the duty of abstention provided for by Article 24, paragraph 5, of the Ethical Code - when the parties with conflicting interests turn to lawyers who are members of the same law firm or professional association or who work in the same premises and collaborate professionally in a non-occasional manner - also applies in the cases contained in paragraph 4 of Article 68 of the same code (according to which the assistance of a minor in family disputes requires the lawyer to refrain from providing their assistance in subsequent family disputes), given that the need to prevent - especially in the sensitive area of family law - the conflict of interest, even if only potential, would be fundamentally undermined if its easy evasion were allowed in the case of close and continuous professional collaborations among lawyers. (In this case, the Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the National Bar Council, which had identified a potential, yet significant, conflict of interest in the conduct of a defender who had accepted the mandate for the procedure aimed at obtaining the recognition of a minor's status, even though the guardian of the minor, who had actually adhered to the recognition request, was a lawyer belonging to the same professional association.)

Implications for the Legal Profession

This judgment offers significant points for reflection for lawyers and legal professionals. The Court clarified that the duty of abstention is not a mere formal compliance but a fundamental guarantee for the protection of the parties involved, especially in family law. The following considerations emerge:

  • The conflict of interest must always be prevented, not just avoided.
  • Collaboration among lawyers must be managed with particular attention in sensitive contexts.
  • Disciplinary responsibility can arise from potential situations, not just from evident conflicts.

In conclusion, Judgment No. 20881 of 2024 represents an important reminder of professional ethics and the responsibility of lawyers. It is crucial for professionals to understand the seriousness of the implications arising from conflicts of interest and to adopt behavior in compliance with current regulations, to ensure trust in the legal system.

Conclusions

The decision of the Court of Cassation emphasizes the importance of the duty of abstention in the presence of conflicts of interest. Lawyers must pay attention to these dynamics, not only to protect their clients but also to preserve the integrity of the legal profession as a whole.

Bianucci Law Firm