CNF Opinion: Handing over digital signatures to third parties is unlawful

1. The facts

   The case originates from an institutional query posed by the Bolzano Bar Council to the National Bar Council, aimed at resolving doubts regarding the lawfulness of delegating the use of signature devices. According to reports from Diritto e Giustizia, the practice in many law firms involved the physical delivery of smart cards and PINs to administrative staff or trainees to speed up filings in the Electronic Civil Trial. The CNF, in a consultative capacity, clarified that such conduct violates the duties of diligence and professional dignity. This is not a single court case, but a consultative function aimed at guiding the District Disciplinary Councils, marking a clear line between technical assistance and delegation of the certifying function.

2. 

   The rules at play

   The regulatory framework centers on the Digital Administration Code (CAD), specifically Art. 32, which imposes on the holder the duty to adopt measures ensuring exclusive custody of the device.

   1. Art. 20 of the CAD establishes that the digital signature guarantees the identifiability of the author, making the document non-repudiable.
   2. Art. 38 of the Forense Deontological Code sanctions the failure to fulfill professional duties.
   3. Art. 125 c.p.c. prescribes the signing of the party's pleading; the absence or alteration of authorship results in the nullity of the act, as the digital signature is the only tool that legally certifies the counsel's will.

3. What case law says

   The case law of the higher courts has clarified that the digital signature is of a strictly personal nature and is not delegable, equating it in every respect to a handwritten signature. Consolidated orientations emphasize that delivering the device to third parties, even if consensual, undermines the public guarantee function of the certification system. The judges have specified that proof of signing by a person other than the holder leads to the annulment of the act, as it is not a mere technical irregularity but a defect concerning the very origin of the declaration. Furthermore, criminal case law has highlighted how the abusive use of a PIN can border on computer forgery if the document falsely certifies the physical presence of the signer at the time the digital footprint is generated.

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. The management of the digital signature device must be exclusive and personal, prohibiting any sharing of PINs or tokens with firm staff.
   2. Administrative staff must be trained to understand that while preparing filings can be delegated, the digital signature must be applied personally by the lawyer.
   3. Non-compliance with these rules exposes the lawyer not only to disciplinary sanctions, but also to substantial professional liability claims resulting from the nullity of procedural acts.

References: D.Lgs. 82/2005 (Codice dell'Amministrazione Digitale)Art. 125 Codice di Procedura CivileArt. 38 Codice Deontologico ForenseParere CNF sulla firma digitale

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