Changing a lawyer while a lawsuit is already underway is possible, but it is not a choice to be confused with simple dissatisfaction or the idea that the process will stop on its own. You may wonder whether you need to justify the revocation, what happens to the already scheduled hearing, how to obtain the files, and whether fees remain owed to the previous professional. These are concrete doubts, especially when deadlines are near or a procedural decision needs to be made.
Revoking the assignment does not leave you without rights, but it requires distinguishing the relationship with the professional from the management of the lawsuit before the judge. I will explain what changes with the takeover of a new defense counsel, which steps deserve attention, and which issues remain separate, such as any dispute regarding the work performed or the fee.
You can revoke the assignment without waiting for the end of the lawsuit
The client can interrupt the professional relationship even during a pending proceeding. Article 2237 of the civil code recognizes the client's right of withdrawal from the intellectual work contract: the choice to change counsel does not in itself require the judge's authorization or proof of an error by the previous lawyer. The rule on withdrawal and its financial effects is reported in Article 2237 of the civil code.
Revoking does not mean accusing. You may decide to proceed with another professional because you want a different communication method, because the trust-based relationship has deteriorated, because the process has entered a new phase, or because you prefer a different defensive approach. These reasons do not automatically prove a breach and do not alone exclude the right to a fee for the work already performed.
The form must be clear and traceable. An unequivocal communication to the outgoing professional avoids misunderstandings about when the trust-based relationship ends. However, if the lawsuit is ongoing, the private relationship is not the only point to regulate: it is also necessary to make the takeover effective in the process, because the judge, opposing party, and registry must be able to identify the counsel representing the party.
Mandate and power of attorney: the difference that impacts the process
The mandate concerns the professional assignment; the power of attorney concerns representation in court. In common parlance, the word "mandate" is often used for both situations, but the distinction is useful. The trust-based relationship governs the assignment entrusted to the lawyer; the power of attorney, instead, is the act that grants them the power to perform procedural activities on your behalf.
In civil proceedings, the lawsuit does not automatically interrupt when you revoke the power of attorney or the lawyer resigns from the assignment. Article 85 of the code of civil procedure provides that revocation and resignation have no effect towards the other party until the replacement of counsel takes place; article 301, third paragraph, does not consider them a cause for interruption of the process. The relationship between these rules is recalled in a provision published in the Official Gazette which examines precisely the effects of the replacement of defense counsel.
The practical point is the continuity of the defense. Revocation does not cancel previously filed documents, does not restart deadlines, and does not render scheduled hearings useless. Until the new defense counsel formally assumes representation in the proceedings, the lawsuit continues according to its schedule. For this reason, it is risky to limit oneself to sending a communication to the previous lawyer when a brief, a hearing, a deadline to appeal, or an adempiment requested by the judge is approaching.
The replacement is not a new lawsuit
The new defense counsel takes over the existing proceeding, with a new power of attorney and with the filing or procedural act necessary to make the appointment recognizable. The concrete method depends on the type of proceeding, the stage reached, and the electronic filing rules applicable to that office. It does not serve to reopen the process or automatically re-submit everything that has already been done: it serves to ensure that the defense continues without gaps.
The rules are not identical in every proceeding type. This guide mainly concerns civil lawsuits. In criminal proceedings, administrative or tax judgments, or proceedings with particular rules, the appointment and revocation of defense counsel follow their own rules; it is not prudent to mechanically apply the steps of civil proceedings to a different proceeding.
Deadlines and hearings: changing defense counsel does not suspend deadlines
Deadlines already underway remain decisive. A brief to be filed, an appearance to be notified, a deadline to appeal a judgment, or a scheduled hearing are not normally postponed simply because the party changes lawyers. The continuity provided by articles 85 and 301 of the code of civil procedure also serves to prevent replacement from becoming a tool to block the course of the lawsuit.
The procedural date counts, not the moment of disappointment. If you lost trust in your counsel a few days before a deadline, the priority is to understand what activity must be performed and who is still listed as counsel of record in the file. Changing professionals may be the appropriate decision, but it does not replace the act necessary to protect your position. A postponement of the hearing, when requested, is not an automatic consequence of revocation.
It is useful to distinguish urgency from choice of merits. Sometimes it is first necessary to avoid the loss of a deadline, without thereby approving all previous defensive assessments. In other cases, there are no imminent activities, and the transition can be organized with greater gradualness. The difference depends on simple but essential data: the docket number of the lawsuit, the competent court, the upcoming dates communicated, and the documents already filed.
An orderly comparison avoids omissions. If you must prepare for the takeover, gather in a single place the issued power of attorney, the introductory and defensive acts, the judge's rulings, the electronic filing receipts, the registry communications, and every notified act. It is not necessary to reconstruct the entire lawsuit by yourself; however, it is important not to confuse a draft with a filed act and a simple communication with a procedural deadline.
File, originals and copies: what you can ask the outgoing professional
Documents do not become a guarantee for payment. The forensic deontological code provides that, if requested, the lawyer must return without delay the acts and documents received from the client for the assignment and deliver a copy of the acts and documents concerning the mandate, even if coming from third parties. The same provision prohibits making the return of documentation conditional on payment of the fee: see Articles 33 and 45 of the forensic deontological code published in the Official Gazette.
Originals and copies have different functions. A contract, a receipt, a private expert report, or other documentation delivered by you to the counsel must be able to be returned to you. The acts drafted or received within the scope of the lawsuit can be transmitted in copies, including digital ones, so that the new counsel can know the status of the file. The outgoing professional may keep a copy of the documentation: this does not reduce your right to receive what is needed to continue the defense.
The handover of documents does not decide the dispute over fees. If an economic discussion remains, it must be addressed separately from the delivery of the file. Retaining originals to obtain payment can make the defense difficult and does not resolve the issue of how much is owed. Likewise, receiving documents does not equate to admitting or contesting the bill presented by the previous lawyer.
Accrued fees: revocation does not wipe out work already performed
Changing lawyers does not automatically cancel the previous fee. Article 2237 of the civil code links the client's withdrawal to the reimbursement of expenses incurred and payment for the work performed. It is therefore necessary to distinguish the activity effectively rendered before revocation from future activity, which will be entrusted to the new defense counsel. There is no rule whereby revocation obliges paying twice for the same phase or, conversely, makes all work already executed free of charge.
The written agreement remains the first reference. The engagement letter, the accepted cost estimate, and any agreements on the stages of the trial help understand what had been agreed and what expenses were foreseen. When the fee has not been determined in writing or an agreement is missing, forensic parameters are the criterion provided for the assessment: their scope is indicated in Article 1 of Ministerial Decree no. 55 of 2014, in the text consultable on Normattiva.
The bill should be read by activity, not by general impressions. It is useful to separate documented expenses, advance payments already made, filed acts, hearings held, and activities possibly included in a flat-rate agreement. Disagreement with the defensive strategy does not in itself render every right to a fee nonexistent; likewise, a financial request does not alone prove that the amount is correct or that all indicated services were effectively performed.
Dissatisfaction, revocation and possible liability are different issues
Revocation resolves the relationship for the future, it does not establish whether the previous lawyer operated correctly. You can change defense counsel without formulating complaints, and you can contest behavior without revocation being, by itself, proof of loss. Confusing these levels often leads to neglecting the most immediate problem: ensuring that the lawsuit continues within deadlines.
Any potential liability requires precise facts. It is not enough that a trial went badly or that a defensive choice did not produce the hoped-for result. It is necessary to distinguish a discretionary decision, a questionable assessment, and a verifiable omission, as well as understanding whether that very specific conduct caused a concrete loss. If your doubt also concerns this aspect, it is best to keep acts, communications, and dates organized, without sacrificing the continuation of the lawsuit for a discussion about the past.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I have to explain why I am revoking the mandate from my lawyer?
No, revocation does not require a motivation to the judge. You can communicate clearly that the assignment has ceased and organize the takeover of a new defense counsel. If a discussion exists regarding activities, documents, or fees, it can be useful to keep the revocation communication and any economic or professional disputes separate.
Does the lawsuit stop when I change lawyers?
No, in civil proceedings it does not stop automatically. Revocation and resignation from the power of attorney do not in themselves constitute a cause for interruption of the trial and do not suspend deadlines. The replacement of defense counsel must therefore be managed without presuming that a hearing or deadline will be postponed merely due to the change.
Can the previous lawyer withhold my documents until I pay?
No, they cannot make the return conditional on payment of the fee. Originals received from the client and copies of acts and documents relating to the assignment must be returned or delivered according to deontological rules. Any credit for fees remains a separate issue to be addressed with the available documents.
Do I have to pay both the old and the new lawyer?
Fees may accrue for different activities. The previous defense counsel may be entitled to a fee for work already performed and expenses incurred; the new professional will instead be entrusted with subsequent activities and the takeover. Verification starts from the written agreement, advance payments made, expenses, and services effectively executed.
Can I change lawyers shortly before a hearing?
Yes, but the timing demands particular attention. Revocation is possible even close to a hearing, but it does not produce an automatic postponement nor eliminate pre-established procedural obligations. It is necessary to make the takeover effective and understand what activity is required before or during the hearing, without leaving deadlines or communications uncovered.
Does revoking the assignment prove that my lawyer made a mistake?
No, revocation is not proof of professional liability. It interrupts the trust-based relationship for the future, whereas any potential liability requires identifying precise conduct, the resulting loss, and the connection between the two. First of all, the ongoing lawsuit must be protected from its deadlines.
A choice to be coordinated with the state of the lawsuit
Changing defense counsel is a right, but procedural continuity must be protected. Revocation may be necessary to recover trust and clarity in the defense; however, it must not turn into an imaginary pause in the lawsuit, nor into an obstacle to the delivery of documents. If you already have a deadline, a hearing, or a judgment to evaluate, you can contact me to frame the takeover in light of the acts and dates that truly impact your proceeding.