Incompatibility of the Lawyer: Analysis of Judgment No. 16668 of 2024

The recent judgment No. 16668 of June 14, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a highly relevant issue for the legal profession: the incompatibility of lawyers who also serve as honorary judges. This decision represents an important clarification on the rules governing the professional activity of lawyers, particularly concerning Article 5, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree No. 116 of 2017, which replaced the previous Law No. 57 of 2016.

Regulatory and Jurisprudential Context

The central issue of the judgment concerns the interpretation of Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Constitution and the laws establishing the causes of incompatibility for the exercise of the legal profession. The Court emphasized that incompatibility is a limitation on the freedom to practice the profession, and therefore must be interpreted restrictively.

In general. A lawyer registered with the bar of a court who also exercises the functions of honorary judge at another court, within the district of the same court of appeal, does not, solely by that fact, find himself in a situation of incompatibility to perform defense activities in a pending trial before that same court, given that Article 4, paragraph 2, Law No. 57 of 2016 (now replaced by Article 5, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree No. 116 of 2017) refers to the district (of the court) and not to the district (of the court of appeal) and that such a norm - in providing for a cause of incompatibility and, therefore, in limiting the general freedom of exercising the profession, deducible from Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Constitution - has an exceptional nature and, in accordance with general principles, must be interpreted restrictively.

This maxim represents a fundamental principle for the legal profession, highlighting that the practice of the legal profession should not be subject to excessive restrictions unless clearly justified by specific rules.

Implications for the Legal Profession

With this ruling, the Court reiterates the importance of ensuring that lawyers have the ability to defend their clients even when they perform functions as honorary judges, provided they operate within the same court of appeal district. This approach allows for greater flexibility in lawyers' careers and promotes synergy among the different legal functions.

  • Clarification of the causes of incompatibility for lawyers and honorary judges.
  • Recognition of the freedom to practice the legal profession.
  • Promotion of greater synergy among legal functions.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 16668 of 2024 represents a significant step in clarifying the boundaries of incompatibility for lawyers who also perform functions as honorary judges. Through a restrictive interpretation of the incompatibility rules, the Court of Cassation reaffirmed the principle of freedom to practice the legal profession, emphasizing the need to balance individual rights with the requirements of the legal system. This decision not only provides greater certainty for lawyers but also contributes to ensuring a more efficient and integrated judicial system.

Bianucci Law Firm