Lawyers' fees and E-trial: Supreme Court on the increase for IT techniques

1. The fact

   The case arises from the appeal of a professional fee assessment decree. According to reports from outlets such as NT+ Diritto and Ipsoa Quotidiano Giuridico, a lawyer requested the application of the 30% increase provided by forensic parameters for filing documents structured with hyperlinks and searchable indexes. The lower court judge had denied the benefit, considering that these methods did not lead to an actual saving of time or a simplification of the decision-making process. The case reached the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict between those who considered the increase an automatic result of simply using advanced techniques and those who saw it as a purely discretionary power of the magistrate. The procedural stage concluded with the definitive ruling of the Civil United Sections.

2. 

   The rules at play

   1. Art. 4, paragraph 1-bis, D.M. no. 55/2014 is the key rule: it provides that the fee is generally increased by 30% when electronic documents are drafted with IT techniques that facilitate consultation, such as hypertext navigation between the document and attachments.
   2. Art. 13 of Law no. 247/2012 establishes the principle of proportionality between fees and the quality of the work performed, delegating the definition of parameters to ministerial decrees.
   3. The rules on the Electronic Civil Trial (PCT) define the minimum technical standards for filing, relative to which the increase acts as a reward for additional efficiency that goes beyond mere legal obligation.

3. What the case law says

   Supreme Court case law long fluctuated between two opposing interpretations. A first orientation held that the increase was due as a matter of right whenever the use of links or searchable indexes was established, with no room for the judge's assessment. A second orientation, conversely, qualified the increase as merely optional, subject to proof of a concrete advantage for judicial activity. With the final decision, the United Sections clarified that the increase is not an automatic penalty against the counterparty, but an incentive for quality. The magistrate has the power and duty to evaluate its merit: they cannot deny it arbitrarily if the document is objectively more usable, but they should not grant it if the techniques used are merely formal and do not simplify the reading of the case file at all.

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

   1. Do not limit yourself to filing generic PDF files, but invest in creating searchable indexes and internal/external hyperlinks.
   2. Always state the presence of these technical measures in the bill of costs, expressly citing Art. 4, paragraph 1-bis of D.M. 55/2014.
   3. If the increase is not granted, check for a specific motivation in the assessment order to evaluate a possible appeal.
   4. Consider the technological care of the document not just as a courtesy to the judge, but as a constitutive element of your own professional value.

References: D.M. n. 55/2014Legge n. 247/2012Orientamento delle Sezioni Unite sulla maggiorazione per tecniche informatiche

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 12 November 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