Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Multiple Representation for Same Client: What This Means for You

News">

November 3, 2025

Rome, Italy – A pivotal decision handed down by Italy’s Court of Cassation on October 21, 2025, is reshaping the landscape for professionals – including Lawyers, Consultants, and Experts – seeking payment for their services. The ruling clarifies the contentious issue of “credit splitting,” offering a meaningful reprieve from longstanding restrictions and providing a pathway to faster financial recovery.

The Long-Standing Battle Over Credit Splitting

For years, Italian professionals have faced obstacles when attempting to recover fees for multiple, distinct assignments completed for the same client. A prevailing legal interpretation discouraged initiating separate legal actions for each invoice, fearing accusations of abusive credit splitting. This often forced professionals to consolidate numerous claims into a single, protracted legal battle, delaying payment and creating financial strain. According to a 2024 report by the National Council of Italian Lawyers, approximately 30% of professional fees remain unpaid due to disputes and legal complexities.

Court of Cassation Shifts the Paradigm

The recent ordinance – number 28031 – issued by the Second Civil Section of the Court of Cassation, carves out a crucial exception to this rule. The Court has established that initiating separate legal proceedings for fees is permissible when the individual tasks performed are clearly distinct and represent separate professional mandates. This ruling emphasizes that an ongoing professional relationship does not automatically preclude the right to pursue individual claims for each completed assignment. The Court echoed prior guidance from the United Sections, affirming that the key lies in the separation and independence of each professional undertaking.

Key Distinctions Explained

The case that triggered this landmark decision involved an expert engaged by an insurance company over several years. When the expert sought payment for a specific claim assessment, the insurance company raised objections based on concerns about abusive credit splitting. The Court sided with the expert, asserting that a history of collaboration does not negate the right to pursue payment for independent tasks.

Though, the Court was careful to delineate boundaries. It maintained that credit splitting remains prohibited when claims arise from a single, continuous relationship.As a notable example, a professional bound by an annual contract with monthly installments cannot file separate lawsuits for each unpaid month. This would be considered an abuse of process.

What Happens if a Case is Improperly Split?

The Court also addressed the consequences of improperly splitting a claim. Judges retain the authority to consolidate separate cases, as outlined in Article 274 of the code of Civil Procedure. If consolidation isn’t feasible, the request might potentially be deemed “inadmissible,” forcing the claimant to refile a single, comprehensive claim. Furthermore, the Court warned that a disloyal creditor attempting to circumvent the rules could be held liable for the opposing party’s legal costs, even if ultimately triumphant in the claim, as per Articles 88 and 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Scenario	Credit Splitting Permissible?	Notes
multiple appraisals for different properties, same client	Yes	Each appraisal is a distinct mandate.
Monthly fees for a year-long consulting contract	No	Represents a single,ongoing relationship.
Series of distinct legal briefs for a complex case	Potentially Yes	Depends on the level of independence of each brief.

Did You Know? the Italian legal system’s emphasis on avoiding procedural abuse has inadvertently created barriers for professionals seeking timely payment.

Pro Tip: Professionals should meticulously document each assignment, clearly outlining the scope of work and the associated fee to strengthen their position in any potential dispute.

Implications for International Legal Practice

While this ruling specifically applies to Italian law, it reflects a broader global discussion regarding fair compensation for professional services. Many jurisdictions grapple with balancing the need to prevent frivolous litigation with the imperative of ensuring professionals are promptly and justly paid. This case may serve as a precedent for similar debates in other countries. The principles of distinct mandates and the importance of clear contractual agreements are universally relevant in professional fee disputes.

Frequently Asked Questions

• What is credit splitting in the context of legal fees? Credit splitting refers to the practice of dividing a single claim into multiple smaller claims to attempt to gain an advantage in legal proceedings.
• Does this ruling mean professionals can always file separate lawsuits for each invoice? Not necessarily. The tasks must be demonstrably distinct and represent separate mandates.
• What are the potential consequences of illegally splitting a claim? The application may be deemed inadmissible, or the creditor could be held liable for the opposing party’s legal costs.
• How does this ruling impact ongoing professional relationships? An ongoing relationship doesn’t automatically preclude separate claims, but each task must be independent.
• what should professionals do to protect themselves from disputes? Professionals should meticulously document each assignment and its scope of work.
• Where can I find the full text of the Court of Cassation’s ordinance? The full text of ordinance number 28031 from October 21, 2025, is available through official Italian legal databases.

Will this ruling lead to a surge in legal actions? Only time will tell. Though, it undeniably empowers professionals and fosters a more equitable environment for fee resolution. Do you think this decision will encourage more professionals to pursue legal action for unpaid fees?

Share this article and let us know your thoughts in the comments below!

What steps should I take to ensure my attorney has obtained truly informed consent regarding multiple representation?

Understanding teh Recent supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court recently delivered a significant ruling impacting the landscape of legal representation, specifically concerning multiple representation – also known as joint representation – of clients with potentially conflicting interests. This decision clarifies existing ethical guidelines and has direct implications for individuals and businesses navigating legal challenges. While the specifics of the case aren’t the focus here, the core takeaway is a bolstering of a lawyer’s ability to represent co-clients, provided stringent conditions are met.This article breaks down what this means for you, whether you’re currently involved in a legal matter or anticipating one.

What is Multiple Representation & Why is it Controversial?

Multiple representation occurs when a single attorney represents two or more clients in the same matter. this is common in situations like:

* Business Partnerships: Partners in a business facing litigation.

* family Disputes: Spouses involved in a divorce or mediation.

* Co-Defendants: Individuals charged with the same crime.

* Real Estate Transactions: Buyers and sellers in a complex deal (less common, but possible).

the controversy stems from potential conflicts of interest. A conflict arises when a lawyer’s duty to one client interferes or potentially interferes with their duty to another. The Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t eliminate the risk of conflicts,but it refines the standards for determining when multiple representation is permissible.Key terms related to this include concurrent representation and conflict of interest rules.

Key Takeaways from the Ruling

The Court emphasized that multiple representation is not per se unethical. However, lawyers must adhere to rigorous safeguards. Here’s a breakdown of the crucial elements:

1. Informed Consent: This is paramount. Lawyers must fully disclose the potential risks and benefits of multiple representation to each client.This disclosure needs to be complete, explaining how conflicts could arise and how the lawyer will mitigate them. Simply stating a conflict exists isn’t enough; the client needs to understand the implications.
2. Reasonable Belief: the attorney must reasonably believe they can provide competent and diligent representation to each client despite the potential conflict. This requires a careful assessment of the specific facts and circumstances.
3. Self-reliant Counsel: Clients must be explicitly advised of their right to seek independent legal counsel. They should understand they can consult with another attorney at any time to evaluate the situation.
4. Written Waiver: Following full disclosure and explanation, each client must provide a written waiver of the conflict of interest. This waiver should be clear, concise, and demonstrate the client’s understanding of the risks involved.
5. Quorum requirement: As established by the Supreme Court, a quorum is needed to proceed with oral arguments or decide a case.https://legalclarity.org/how-many-supreme-court-justices-are-needed-to-decide-a-case/

Benefits of Multiple Representation (when Permissible)

When ethically permissible, multiple representation can offer several advantages:

* Cost Savings: sharing legal fees can considerably reduce expenses, especially for individuals or small businesses.

* Streamlined Interaction: A single attorney can coordinate efforts and ensure consistent messaging.

* Unified Strategy: A unified legal strategy can be more effective in certain situations, particularly when clients have common goals.

* Efficiency: Avoiding duplication of effort can expedite the legal process.

Potential Risks & Red Flags

Despite the benefits, be aware of potential pitfalls:

* Confidentiality Concerns: Information shared with the attorney by one client could potentially be used against another.

* Divided Loyalty: The attorney’s loyalty might potentially be divided, especially if the clients’ interests diverge.

* impaired Advocacy: The attorney may be hesitant to aggressively advocate for one client if it could harm the other.

* Disqualification: If a conflict arises during litigation, the attorney may be disqualified from representing either client.

Red Flags:

* Your attorney doesn’t fully explain the risks of multiple representation.

* You feel pressured to waive a potential conflict.

* Your attorney seems hesitant to advocate for your specific interests.

* You suspect your attorney is sharing confidential information with the other client.

Real-World Example: Business Partner Dispute

consider two business partners facing a breach of contract lawsuit. They hire a single attorney to defend them. The attorney must disclose the possibility that one partner might accuse the other of wrongdoing related to the contract.Both partners must understand this risk and sign a written waiver acknowledging it. The attorney must then be prepared to withdraw if the partners’ interests become irreconcilable.

Practical Tips for Clients

* Ask Questions: Don’t hesitate to ask your attorney detailed questions about multiple representation and potential