Settlement of legal fees: the judge's limits according to Order no. 28749 of 30/10/2025

The determination of judicial costs has always represented a delicate balancing act in the Italian civil process. The legislator, through the adoption of periodic ministerial parameters, has sought to ensure a fair, predictable, and dignified settlement for the services rendered by lawyers. However, it is not uncommon for trial judges to deviate from these parameters, forcing the Supreme Court of Cassation to intervene to restore regulatory order. This is precisely the core of Order no. 28749 of 30/10/2025, which addresses the dispute between L., represented by lawyer G. D. G., and I., represented by lawyer C. P., quashing the decision of the Court of Rome with remand.

The principle of the inviolability of minimum tariff thresholds

The ruling of the Supreme Court, presided over by F. G. and with reporting judge D. C., focuses on a cornerstone principle of the settlement of litigation costs: the limitation of the judge's discretionary power. When applying ministerial parameters for the settlement of professional fees, the magistrate enjoys a certain margin of appreciation to adjust the bill to the complexity of the case, but this power is not absolute. The order firmly reiterates that there are minimum inviolable thresholds, introduced to safeguard the dignity and adequacy of the professional's compensation.

The Cassation's headnote and its practical significance

To fully understand the scope of this decision, it is essential to analyze the official headnote expressed by the judges of legitimacy:

Regarding legal fees, in the absence of a different agreement between the parties, the judge, where the settlement is made based on the parameters referred to in Ministerial Decree no. 55 of 2014 (as amended by Ministerial Decree no. 37 of 2018), may not fall below 50% of the relevant average values, and is not required, moreover, to provide any specific justification if said limit is respected.

The headnote clarifies two fundamental aspects for legal practitioners. Firstly, it establishes an inviolable limit: the judge cannot reduce fees below 50% of the average values provided for by the ministerial tables. Secondly, it simplifies the magistrate's burden of justification: if the settlement remains above this safety threshold, the judge is under no obligation to explain in detail the reasons for their quantitative choice. Conversely, any reduction below 50% constitutes a violation of law that can be challenged before the court of legitimacy.

The regulatory framework

The Cassation's decision rests on solid regulatory foundations and fits into an established jurisprudential path. The essential reference points of this discipline include:

• Ministerial Decree no. 55 of 2014: the regulation governing the determination of parameters for the settlement of fees for the legal profession.
• Ministerial Decree no. 37 of 2018: the update that modified the reduction thresholds and the criteria for applying the parameters.
• Article 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure: the cornerstone rule governing the principle of the losing party paying costs and the order for reimbursement of litigation expenses.

This regulatory framework ensures that the judge's discretion does not translate into arbitrariness, protecting both the professional's right to receive fair compensation and the winning party's right not to see their victory nullified by an excessively penalizing settlement of the legal costs incurred.

Conclusions: a protection for the entire legal profession

In conclusion, Order no. 28749 of 30/10/2025 stands as an important bulwark in defense of the professional dignity of lawyers. By imposing the inviolable limit of 50% of the average values and linking the obligation of justification to the crossing of this threshold, the Cassation ensures greater uniformity and predictability of judicial decisions throughout Italy. For citizens and businesses, this translates into greater legal certainty and the guarantee that the cost of legal assistance, in the event of a victory in court, is fairly reimbursed.