The case, explained

The case explained: the reform of legal advertising between social media and comparison platforms

6 min read · Updated November 2026 · Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa

Recent regulatory developments mark a turning point for legal communication in Italy, following the new guidelines of the National Bar Council on the amendment of Art. 35 of the Code of Conduct for Lawyers. As reported by the specialized press and outlets such as Italia Oggi, the reform incorporates the recommendations of the Competition and Market Authority, liberalizing the channels of dissemination while tightening controls on message content. This article examines the transition from traditional to digital advertising, analyzing the boundary between correct information and client poaching. Through the examination of our twin case, we will see how the use of algorithms and comparison platforms must always comply with professional dignity and the prohibition of suggestive messaging.

The case explained: the reform of legal advertising between social media and comparison platforms

In brief

The article analyzes the reform of Art. 35 of the Code of Conduct for Lawyers, highlighting the free choice of advertising channels for lawyers. It examines the limits established by case law on the use of comparison platforms and social media sponsorships, distinguishing lawful informative advertising from prohibited client poaching. The piece provides a practical guide for professionals on the correct use of digital tools.

The facts
According to reports by Italia Oggi, the National Bar Council has completed the revision of Art. 35 of the Code of Conduct for Lawyers to align Italian regulations with European Union principles of free competition. The matter originates from the observations of the AGCM, which challenged the excessive restriction of advertising media, previously limited almost exclusively to websites owned by the professional. Currently, the rule is fully in force and its application in related disciplinary proceedings is undergoing interpretive adjustment before the District Disciplinary Councils, which must assess whether sponsorships on Facebook and Instagram constitute mere information or unlawful poaching through suggestive algorithms.
The rules at play
1. Art. 10 of Law 247/2012 constitutes the statutory framework allowing lawyers to provide information about their practice by any medium, while prohibiting deceptive or derogatory comparisons.
2. Art. 35 of the Code of Conduct for Lawyers, in its updated wording, specifies that advertising must be transparent, truthful, and non-suggestive, eliminating former restrictions on technological media.
3. Art. 37 of the same Code penalizes client poaching, namely the acquisition of instructions through third parties or via methods contrary to professional dignity, such as paying commissions for contacts received through external platforms.
What case law says
Case law from the supreme court has clarified that using web intermediation platforms is lawful provided the website merely facilitates the matching of supply and demand without exercising discretionary selection of the lawyer. Established case law emphasizes that the informative nature of the communication is lost when emphatic slogans or guarantees of outcomes are used, turning information into commercial advertising. The National Bar Council recently confirmed that social media sponsorship is permitted, but employing messages that exploit a user's vulnerable state to induce the conferring of a mandate constitutes a serious disciplinary breach.
The twin case
Meanwhile, in Roccamesta…
Gaio Sventura, a young lawyer in Roccamesta, decides to launch his digital career by relying on Ditta Sempronio & Figli, an aggressive marketing agency. Ignoring the advice of Avv. Prudenzia Cavillo, Gaio authorizes an Instagram campaign featuring the slogan "The Terror of Insurers: Guaranteed compensation or you pay nothing!", accompanied by a price comparison system that consistently ranks him as the cheapest in the province. Ditta Sempronio & Figli sets up an algorithm that sends push notifications to anyone near the local emergency room. Maia Queraldi, a neighbor who has just suffered a minor fender bender, receives the ad and, annoyed by the persistence, reports Gaio's profile to the Bar Council. Gaio defends himself by arguing that Art. 35 now permits any advertising medium and that his actions merely reflect an entrepreneurial spirit.
Warning: the practical case is a hypothetical educational reconstruction and does not correspond to the real affair nor does it anticipate its outcome; any reference to real persons or entities is purely coincidental; the analysis is based exclusively on the rules and orientations referred to and constitutes general legal information, not legal advice.
Step-by-step analysis
1. First, it must be evaluated whether Gaio Sventura's message constitutes suggestive advertising: the use of the slogan "The Terror of Insurers" and the promise of "guaranteed compensation" violate the duties of truthfulness and correctness, as the outcome of proceedings can never be guaranteed.
2. The burden of proof rests on the lawyer, who must demonstrate the purely informative nature of the published data.
3. The use of geolocation algorithms to target users near the emergency room constitutes client poaching, as it exploits the potential client's vulnerable state in a manner contrary to professional dignity.
4. The price comparison system ranking Gaio as "the cheapest" violates the prohibition against comparative and derogatory advertising toward colleagues, failing to adhere to the objective parameters required by the Code of Conduct for Lawyers.
Possible outcomes
1. Sanction of censure: if the District Disciplinary Council finds only a breach of the limits of informative advertising (Art. 35), sanctioning the emphatic and suggestive tone.
2. Suspension from practice: a highly probable outcome if client poaching (Art. 37) is established due to the invasive algorithm near the emergency room, with a suspension ranging from 2 to 6 months.
3. Dismissal of charges: possible only if Gaio proves that the message was purely descriptive of his qualifications and that sending the notifications was a technical error not attributable to him, a defense that remains hard to sustain given the contract signed with the agency.
From the twin case to the real case
The case of Gaio Sventura highlights the tension between modern marketing strategies and the mandatory duties of dignity and propriety incumbent upon lawyers. In real-world practice, the reform of Art. 35 confirms that the key issue is no longer where or through which medium advertising occurs, but rather how it is conducted. The question of a lawyer's liability for the actions of external marketing agencies remains open, a topic that future case law must further clarify to prevent technological innovation from undermining public trust in the legal profession.
Meet the cast of the columnGaio Sventura and the other inhabitants of Roccamesta return in every practical case.Read their stories
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
What it teaches professionals
1. Always ensure that advertising campaigns managed by third parties comply with the prohibition against suggestive messages, avoiding guarantees of outcomes or overly emphatic tones.
2. Refrain from using comparison platforms that require commission payments for each acquired lead, choosing instead channels that preserve the client's autonomous choice.
3. Ensure that all information provided, including on social media, is grounded in objective and verifiable data regarding one's professional qualifications and organization.

References: Art. 10 L. 247/2012Art. 35 Codice Deontologico ForenseArt. 37 Codice Deontologico Forense

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 1 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

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between informative and suggestive advertising?

Informative advertising provides objective data (skills, costs, office location), whereas suggestive advertising uses emotional techniques or promises of outcomes to influence the client's choice.

Is it legal to pay Google or Facebook to sponsor a law firm?

Yes, following the reform of Art. 35, any medium may be used, provided that the content of the sponsored post complies with the principles of dignity, transparency, and truthfulness.

What are the risks if a law firm's website promises guaranteed compensation?

It triggers a disciplinary proceeding for breach of Articles 35 and 37 of the Code of Conduct for Lawyers, leading to sanctions ranging from censure to suspension from practice.

Verified legal research and drafting with edit.legal

Legal research and drafting with citations checked against official databases. edit.legal is free to try, no credit card.

Try edit.legal for free

The case explained: the reform of legal advertising between social media and comparison platforms

In brief

The facts

The rules at play

What case law says

What it teaches professionals

Related cases

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between informative and suggestive advertising?

Is it legal to pay Google or Facebook to sponsor a law firm?

What are the risks if a law firm's website promises guaranteed compensation?

Verified legal research and drafting with edit.legal