According to the judges, the lawyer who, during the hearing of witnesses, writes down on the minutes of the hearing a phrase never pronounced by the judge, must be sanctioned.

The lawyer, after the sanction, has referred to the Court of Cassation, with the request to suspend the execution of the sanction: despite this, the judges confirmed the penality, because of the grave violation of the code of ethics forensics.

The lawyer had complained about the unjustified application of the sanction, believing that his action did not constitute the cases of art. 22 of the Ethics Forensics Code, and, mostly, that the aforementioned sanction was not parameterized to the required gravity. The Supreme Court, however, felt that the judgment was not subject to censorship on the reasonableness and adequacy of the reasoning, concluding, moreover, that “in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against lawyers the concrete identification of unlawful  conduct is left to the professional order as long as   the legality on the application of such rules does not allow the Supreme Court to replace the CNF enunciation of wrongful assumptions, except within the limits of an assessment of reasonableness that relates not to the adequacy of the reasoning, but to the identification of the law”