There are 20,000 lawyer practitioners who have been waiting for the correction of the written test carried out in December for the qualifying exam since December. For a few weeks the situation has become incandescent because the coronavirus emergency has stopped the corrections for months and all practitioners risk having to repeat the written test in December of this year with all the problems that would also entail for the known problems of distancing.
But not only. The Minister of University and Research – he tells in a letter to Courier service Practitioner Giulia Brugnerotto – established that for the purpose of qualifying for the exercise of specific professions such as for example architect, social worker, surveyor, engineer, chartered accountant, accountant expert etc., in order to the first exam session set in the 2020, it is sufficient to take a single oral exam according to the “remote” methods. However, among these specific professions, that of aspiring lawyers was not included. No one who does not see how there is a clear unjustified difference in treatment in relation to a profession of equal dignity with respect to those mentioned above. The lawyer Leonardo Salvemini, of the lawyer exams commission of Milan (who this year corrects the papers of the practitioners of Naples) intervenes on the difference in treatment: Given that Milan has already resumed the correction of the writings – Salvemini specifies – the Equalization of the lawyers’ examination with that of other categories for two reasons: in the case of lawyers in the competent Ministry, that of justice and not of the University, moreover, unlike other categories, the qualifying examination of lawyers already has a written test . Finally, despite the delay due to the health emergency, all commissions should have finished corrections in September.
The two hypotheses
Explanations that do not convince the Lawyer Exam Committee which proposes two alternative solutions. The other years – said Isabel Bassanelli, spokesman for the Committee – the practitioners who were in a hurry to support the oral tests could appear at the pre-appeal already at the end of June. This year if it goes well in September we will have the correct writings. It is true that Milan has started to correct the Naples papers again, but, for example, it does not appear that Rome (which corrects Milan’s writings) has left again. For this reason, we offer two solutions: to declare candidates who have obtained a positive evaluation of the written papers suitable for forensic qualification, excluding the conduct of oral tests. This would allow the Commissions to carry out their work in less stringent times, allowing a careful evaluation of the written tests, as well as the conclusion of the qualification procedure within the next month of October, with a significant reduction of risks for the next 2020 session. the second? If you insist on maintaining the oral test for the 2019 session – continues Bassanelli, a practitioner of the LCA study – we propose to approve a law that provides that the announcement for the qualification for the forensic profession 2020 will have suitable candidates for the tests written 2019 direct access to the oral exam of the 2020 session, without the burden of the “precautionary text”. In this way, the illogical “new verification” of suitability already demonstrated in documents and opinions would be avoided. A hypothesis that would even meet the opinion of the commissions. It could be a solution – admits Salvemini – even if I believe that this should be an opportunity to get to the reform of the qualifying examination for lawyers, disciplined, well remembered, by a law of 1934