The management of third-party funds constitutes one of the most delicate cores of legal practice, as it directly projects the principle of trust that underpins the lawyer-client relationship.
The recent interpretation provided by the General Council of Spanish Lawyers, in connection with Article 19 of the Code of Ethics, merely reinforces a structural idea of the system: the lawyer does not hold, under any circumstances, an autonomous power of disposal over money received on behalf of their client.
u003cfigure class=u0022wp-block-image size-full is-resizedu0022u003eu003cimg class=u0022alignnone size-medium wp-image-1225u0022 src=u0022https://bulityserra.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/blog1-300×197.pngu0022 alt=u0022u0022 width=u0022300u0022 height=u0022197u0022 /u003ernu003cfigcaption class=u0022wp-element-captionu0022u003eu003c/figcaptionu003eu003c/figureu003e
Far from being mere formal requirements, the duties of segregation, identification, and immediate availability of funds stand as true material guarantees aimed at preventing commingling of assets and preserving the traceability of the amounts managed. In this context, the prohibition of unilateral deduction of fees—even when a legitimate credit exists—operates as a specific manifestation of a broader principle: the prohibition of any form of self-help in the professional sphere.
Practice reveals, however, that the most frequent conflicts are concentrated in three areas: the improper disposal of funds through forms of misappropriation or diversion, unjustified retention as a pressure mechanism in fee disputes, and the attempted unilateral set-off lacking express contractual backing. In all these cases, the key to lawfulness does not lie in the characterization the professional assigns to their conduct, but in the existence of a clear enabling title and in the full traceability of the management performed.
The case law—both civil and criminal—confirms and densifies this framework. On the one hand, it underlines that money received on behalf of the client generates a strict obligation of delivery or restitution, the breach of which may lead to disciplinary liability and, in the most serious cases, to criminal characterization as misappropriation. On the other hand, it insists that neither the existence of outstanding fees nor the invocation of professional practices legitimizes the unilateral disposal of third-party funds outside the legal channels for claiming them.
In short, the handling of third-party funds is now configured as an area of minimal tolerance towards opacity and discretion. The requirement of express consent, contractual clarity, and accountability do not constitute mere good practices, but structural conditions of legitimacy for professional practice.
This text constitutes a summary of a broader study, which analyzes in detail the ethical boundaries, the jurisprudential projection, and the most relevant areas of friction in professional practice.
You can access the full document below:
Expertos en derecho civil, penal y recursos de casación. También gestionamos pensiones, incapacidades y prestaciones sociales. Asesoramiento cercano y soluciones efectivas para tu caso.
