by Maria Teresa Scorzoni – “The abolition of orders? I want to quote Voltaire, who wondered if freedom consists in the fact that the cook can be a monsignor and the monsignor can be a cook. The answer is no, because freedom is for everyone to do their job well. Instead, the one who believed in this possibility was Lenin, according to whom roles are interchangeable in an advanced state of society”.
Francesco Galgano, eminent jurist from Catania who has been teaching at the University of Bologna since the 70s, lawyer, great expert in civil and commercial law (in the mid-80s he was part of the ministerial commission for the reform of the company statute) bowl without I appeal the hypothesis of abolition of traditional professional orders, an "illiberal" perspective with an authoritarian flavour, already rejected "by the European Court of Justice". According to Galgano, the issue is dealt with superficially. “There are discussions – he says – which should presuppose knowledge of some regulatory data. And I don't think so." Here's what he told Firstonline.
Professor, in your opinion, does the idea of abolishing the Orders dust off a question that has already been resolved at a European level?
The European Court of Justice has already ruled on the point, arguing that those laws that establish professional orders that do not respond to needs of collective interest and that are only a pretext for granting caste privileges are to be considered illegitimate. For example customs brokers in Spain or industrial property experts. But when the Court of Justice addressed the question of lawyers, it changed its orientation and said: up to now we have dealt with "pseudo-professions", but when we are faced with traditional professions such as doctor or lawyer, there are general interests that must be protected, such as health and justice. Here it is, or do we want to legitimize magicians and holy men for example?
And what effect did Bersani's sheets have?
In the Bersani decree of 2006 a real paradox was reached, writing that the deontological provisions in contrast with that law were to be considered null and void. There was talk of 'liberalization' and in the meantime a perfect ethical and authoritarian state was taking shape. I don't know who suggested that unfortunate formulation to the then minister who seems to me to be a philosopher and not a jurist by training.
Don't you think, however, that a streamlining of procedures is necessary?
I recently bought a house in the US and did it by fax. Of course it seems like a simplification, given that we need a notary and a transcript, but what you save in time and money first, you then spend on thousands of insurance policies and in the subsequent litigation which is much higher. The Americans are savages, we've had the land register for almost a thousand years, they haven't. Or rather they don't have it yet.
On Firstonline, the former general secretary of the Antitrust, Alberto Pera, pointed the finger at the exclusiveness of professional services. What do you think?
Basically against pharmacists and notaries. But it's a laughable attack. For example, notaries are public officials and then they earn less than in the past, many small notaries even find it difficult to cover study expenses.
Don't you think the economy is stalled because companies spend too much on professions and heavy taxes?
No, I really don't think so. The problem could make sense if companies turn to professionals who charge minimum rates. In reality, companies are looking for the most expensive professionals. The contracted values are a thousand miles away from the minimum. There are cases in which one is surprised by the enormity of the figures that are requested. We would have to discuss this. The lawyers' fees are related to the value of the dispute. Think of Berlusconi's case with De Benedetti for 560 million euros, the lawyers can be entitled to a fee of around 1%. These percentages have been abused in some arbitrations. But there are also noble examples, such as that of the lawyer who defended the Vajont case. He obtained a compensation of several billion which he turned entirely to the victims of the disaster. Professionals often bring added value to the company that far exceeds their fee, think of Franzo Grande Stevens and Fiat.
Don't you think that the Anglo-Saxon system, invoked by many, is better?
It happened to me to represent an Italian entrepreneur in a negotiation with an American company. The meeting took place in Naples. The opposing party showed up with 21 lawyers, each of whom knew only a small fraction of the whole. While I, who had researched the whole matter, came alone with an engineer. Do we really think that system is cost effective? With 21 lawyers he made one.
Don't you think that the abolition of orders and barriers would give a boost to work, given that young people would no longer have to pass controversial competitions?
Make way for the donkeys then. One cannot think that a degree is enough, that it is the winning ticket, the biggest game begins later. The university provides only the baggage of knowledge useful for entering the field.
But if, in your opinion, the liberalization of the professions is not needed, why is there so much talk about it?
Certainly not for reasons of competition, perhaps to blame someone.
Is the focus shifting away from more serious problems?
Probably yes. Consider, for example, the fact that there is no political Europe. In the Community context, the law is ahead of the economy. The degree of legal unification of Europe is higher than that of political unification. An Italian company that sells in Germany still 'exports', while a Californian company that sells in Virginia does not export, because that is the domestic market. This is not the case in Europe yet.
And the weight of finance?
We have seen the troubles that the financial economy has combined which, as Obama said, is the illusion of wealth. When the sense of the proportion between the real and financial economy is lost, false wealth is created. The financial economy is wealth based on the hope of a future event, which may not come true as has happened in recent years. I remember the answer of a leading American economist to the question: why did Italian banks resist the crisis more than banks in other countries? The answer was hilarious, in fact he said: "because the Italian banks are more backward". Long live the backwardness then.
Can anything be done better?
We must have the courage to ban open stock market transactions. That is to say that in order to buy and sell a security it must be necessary to actually deliver it, this hinders speculation. But there are strong pressures that prevent us from touching on these issues. Think of the question of whether financial derivatives can be entered on the assets side of the balance sheet. The jurists thought absolutely not, but the powerful association of rating agencies imposed this solution and the European Union was unable to oppose it.
