Analysis of Judgment No. 23276 of 2024: Continued Validity of Mandate and Unavailability of Counsel

The recent order No. 23276 of August 28, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers an important reflection on the management of mandates in procedural matters. In particular, the case under examination concerns the notification of an appeal to the Court of Cassation in situations where the first counsel is unavailable and the relevance of the continued validity of the mandate for the second counsel.

Regulatory Context

The issue addressed by the Court falls within the scope of Article 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure (c.p.c.), which establishes the rules for the revocation and withdrawal of a mandate. The maxim of the judgment states that, in the presence of multiple counsel, the notification of the appeal must be made to the second counsel if the first is unavailable, without this necessity ceasing even in the presence of a withdrawal of the mandate by the second counsel.

The presence in court of multiple counsel for the same party implies that, in case of unavailability of the first, the notification of the appeal to the Court of Cassation must be made to the second, without the necessity of compliance ceasing due to withdrawal of the mandate by the latter, as, in the absence of specific instructions from the represented party, the continued validity of the mandate provided for by art. 85 c.p.c. applies.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

The decision of the Court of Cassation carries some significant implications for legal professionals:

• Clarity in Notification: The judgment clarifies that the unavailability of one counsel does not exempt from the responsibility of notification to the other counsel.
• Continued Validity of Mandate: The continuity of the mandate, even in case of withdrawal, is fundamental to ensure the proper management of the proceedings.
• Coordination Between Counsel: It is essential that there is coordination between counsel to avoid issues related to communication and the management of procedural documents.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 23276 of 2024 represents an important milestone in Italian jurisprudence regarding the management of mandates in procedural matters. It reaffirms the need for careful and coordinated management among counsel, emphasizing that withdrawal from a mandate does not invalidate the continuity of legal representation. Lawyers and legal professionals must therefore pay particular attention to these dynamics to ensure adequate protection of their clients' rights.