Bar Exam 2024 Call: Ministerial Decree Published

1. The fact

   The matter concerns the calling of the 2024 exam session, the notice of which was signed by the Minister of Justice Carlo Nordio. According to reports from outlets such as Altalex and Il Sole 24 Ore, Guida al Diritto, the decree confirms an approach that deviates from the ordinary rules provided by the 2012 professional law. The current stage is that of administrative implementation, with the organizational machinery of the Court of Appeal districts ready to manage the tests. The core of the measure lies in the decision not to return to the traditional three written tests, favoring a model that emphasizes the drafting of a single judicial act. The press has highlighted how this choice, initially linked to the health emergency, has been progressively stabilized to ensure speed and uniformity in qualification procedures. Despite criticism from parts of the legal profession regarding the qualitative standard of the selection, the call is proceeding toward the operational phase of registration.

2. 

   The rules at stake

   The regulatory framework rests on a delicate balance between reform laws and extension decrees.

   1. Law No. 247 of December 31, 2012, specifically Article 46, establishes the ordinary exam regime (two legal opinions and one judicial act), the application of which has nevertheless been deferred again.
   2. D.L. No. 215 of December 30, 2023 (Milleproroghe Decree) constitutes the legal basis for extending the transitional format to the 2024 session.
   3. The Ministerial Decree defines the technical structure of the exam: a written judicial act and an oral exam divided into three sub-phases. The function of these rules is to balance the need for selective rigor with the necessity of not paralyzing access to the legal labor market. Non-compliance with technical requirements (such as the ban on commented codes) results in immediate exclusion from the competition, qualifying the call as a lex specialis binding on both the administration and the candidates.

3. What the jurisprudence says

   Administrative jurisprudence has consolidated very strict trends regarding State exams. The courts of legitimacy have clarified that the numerical score assigned by the board is in itself sufficient motivation for the evaluation, as an analytical report for each paper is not required unless clear logical flaws are identified. Furthermore, administrative courts have established that the examining board exercises technical discretion that cannot be reviewed on the merits by the TAR or the Council of State. Judicial review remains limited to cases of manifest factual error, misrepresentation of facts, or blatant procedural unreasonableness, excluding the possibility for the court to substitute its own judgment for that of the board's experts.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   The analysis of the 2024 session offers valuable lessons for those accompanying trainees toward qualification.

   1. Always verify the compliance of codes with the latest ministerial circulars, avoiding texts with even minimal case law references.
   2. Train candidates in time management for the single written test, which allows no second chances in case of an error in subject selection.
   3. Monitor the trends of local Court of Appeal districts regarding the first oral phase, which has become the true selective filter of the transitional procedure.

References: Legge 31 dicembre 2012, n. 247D.L. 30 dicembre 2023, n. 215

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 18 October 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction