Italian Lawyers Divided on Judicial Reform: ‘No’ Vote Gains Traction
Padua, Italy – A growing number of Italian lawyers are publicly dissenting from what they describe as a misleading narrative surrounding a forthcoming referendum on justice reform, revealing a more fractured legal landscape than commonly portrayed. While proponents of the referendum frame the debate as a conflict between judges and lawyers, a significant contingent of legal professionals are voicing opposition, fearing the reforms will weaken judicial independence and alter the constitutional balance of power.
The dissent surfaced most visibly in Padua, where over 200 lawyers have signed a declaration opposing the referendum, according to reporting by Il Fatto Quotidiano. The lawyers, representing diverse specializations – civil, administrative, and criminal law – express concern that the proposed changes will not genuinely separate the prosecuting and judging functions within the Italian legal system, but instead will erode checks and balances established by the country’s constitution.
“There’s a lot of talk about judges versus lawyers, but that’s not the reality,” said a penal lawyer in Padua, who requested anonymity. “I resigned from the Criminal Chamber of Lawyers because I am against the Nordio Reform. It’s being presented as a simple disagreement, but for some of us, it’s a matter of principle.”
The core of the opposition centers on proposed changes to judicial disciplinary procedures and the method for electing members of the Superior Council of the Judiciary (CSM), the governing body of the Italian judiciary. Lawyers involved in the “Avvocati per il No” (Lawyers for No) movement argue that these changes will politicize the judiciary, potentially subjecting judges to undue influence. Specifically, concerns have been raised about the introduction of an “Alta Corte disciplinare” (High Disciplinary Court), which would remove the ability of magistrates to appeal disciplinary rulings to the Court of Cassation, a right currently afforded to them in cases involving military tribunals.
The debate isn’t limited to Padua. In Genoa, the president of the local Chamber of Lawyers, Fabiana Cilio, sparked controversy with a critical statement directed at opponents of the reform, characterizing them as “actors, singers, union representatives and professors of any subject” engaged in a “litany of authoritarian drift.” This prompted the resignation of Stefano Bigliazzi, a prominent Genoese lawyer and supporter of the “No” campaign, who stated he could no longer remain a member of an organization that did not tolerate dissent. Similar, though less public, divisions are reported to exist in Trapani.
Franco Moretti, president of “Avvocati per il No,” emphasized the interconnectedness of attacks on both the legal profession and the judiciary, stating in Reggio Calabria that “every attack on the legal profession is an attack on the judiciary, and every attack on the judiciary is an attack on the legal profession.” This sentiment reflects a broader concern that the reforms are part of a wider trend to concentrate power in the executive branch, as evidenced by criticisms of the government’s handling of the legislative process, bypassing parliamentary debate in favor of direct government action, according to a constitutional law professor at the University of Pisa.
The fragmentation within the legal community is further highlighted by the case of a lawyer who resigned from the management committee of the Padua Criminal Chamber of Lawyers after joining the “No” committee. While the Chamber president, Paola Rubini, stated the resignation was voluntary and the lawyer could reconsider after the referendum, the incident underscores the pressure faced by those publicly opposing the reforms. Rubini, a former colleague of prominent Berlusconi-era lawyers Niccolò Ghedini and Piero Longo, likewise noted the Chamber’s historical support for separating the roles of judges and prosecutors and establishing a double CSM and High Court.
The referendum is scheduled to take place as concerns grow over what opponents describe as “daily attacks on magistrates” who make decisions unfavorable to the ruling political majority, particularly in cases involving personal freedoms, freedom of expression, and the rights of minors, and foreigners. The “Avvocati per il No” argue that the proposed constitutional changes would exacerbate this trend, opening the door to increased political interference in the judicial system.