Fair compensation and lawyers' professional misconduct

1. The fact

   According to reports by Il Sole 24 Ore, NT+ Diritto, and other specialized journals, the case originates from a complex institutional dialogue between the National Bar Council (CNF) and the Antitrust Authority (AGCM). At the heart of the dispute was the original wording of Art. 25-bis of the Deontological Code of Lawyers, introduced in 2024, which sanctioned fair compensation violations in very broad terms. The AGCM launched an investigation alleging that an overly extensive disciplinary sanction could restrict competition, affecting agreements even with small clients and private citizens. To avoid an antitrust fine and resolve the regulatory conflict, the CNF approved Resolution No. 959 of January 23, 2026, which entered into force on April 7, 2026. This measure limited the disciplinary offense exclusively to dealings with so-called strong counterparties, such as banks, insurance companies, and enterprises with turnover exceeding ten million euros or more than fifty employees. The acceptance of the commitments by the National Bar Council took place without any admission of liability as to the alleged antitrust violation; however, the AGCM measure of November 12, 2025, is appealable before the TAR Lazio within 60 days.

2. 

   The rules at play

   The system rests on the interaction between statutory laws and ethical precepts.

   1. Law No. 49 of April 21, 2023 establishes that compensation for professional services must be proportionate to the quantity and quality of work performed, declaring null and void any clauses providing for fees lower than ministerial parameters in dealings with strong counterparties.
   2. Article 25-bis of the Deontological Code of Lawyers transforms this civil violation into a disciplinary offense: a lawyer who accepts or agrees to an unfair fee commits a breach resulting in the sanction of censure.
   3. Ministerial Decree 55/2014 (and subsequent amendments) provides the numerical reference parameters; case law clarifies that the maximum allowed reduction, even for strong counterparties, cannot exceed the 50% threshold of ministerial average values, beyond which compensation ceases to be dignified.

3. What case law says

   The interpretive orientation has clarified that the disciplinary offense related to agreeing on unfair fees is of an instantaneous nature. This means the violation is committed the very moment the agreement is signed or the economic request is formulated, regardless of actual payment. Consolidated orientations emphasize that the rationale of the rule is not only to protect the individual lawyer but to preserve the decorum of the profession as a whole, preventing the imbalance of contractual power from leading to a systematic devaluation of intellectual work. It has also been specified that the principle of non-retroactivity prevents the application of sanctions for conventions concluded before May 2023, while the duty of fairness remains for ongoing services.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   1. Client profiling: Always verify the size data of new corporate clients to immediately identify strong counterparties subject to Law 49/2023.
   2. Preventive analysis: Calculate the minimums provided by M.D. 55/2014 before signing conventions or quotes for serial services, ensuring never to drop below the safety threshold of 50% of the average values.
   3. Written disclosure: Always prepare a clear written disclosure specifying that the fee was agreed upon in compliance with equity criteria, especially if the contract is drafted by the professional.
   4. Ethical resistance: Remember that accepting a derisory fee is not a favor to the client, but a potential disciplinary offense that cannot be cured by the counterparty's consent.

References: Legge 21 aprile 2023, n. 49Art. 25-bis Codice Deontologico ForenseD.M. 55/2014

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 5 November 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction