Constitutional Court Declares Bar Association Disciplinary Regime Unconstitutional

Ruling TC/0129/26 determines that the Executive Branch usurped the functions of the Legislative Branch by creating a system of sanctions for lawyers through a decree. Three justices dissented, arguing that postponing the effects of the ruling would be tantamount to validating its unconstitutionality.

The Constitutional Court declared the articles that supported the disciplinary regime for Dominican lawyers unconstitutional, concluding that the Executive Branch arrogated to itself a power that the Constitution reserves exclusively for the National Congress. The decision, published this Wednesday, March 11, leaves the legal profession without a current disciplinary framework and opens a one-year period for the legislature to approve a law to replace it.

Ruling TC/0129/26, issued by the full court presided over by Justice Napoleón R. Estévez Lavandier, upheld the direct action of unconstitutionality filed by attorney Lilia Fernández León against Articles 73 through 77 of Decree No. 1290 of 1983, through which the Executive Branch ratified the Code of Ethics of the Dominican Republic Bar Association (CARD). These articles contained a catalog of infractions and sanctions ranging from reprimands to permanent disqualification from practicing law.

The Executive Branch Legislated Where It Should Not Have

The court determined that, by defining infractions, establishing sanctions, and regulating disciplinary procedures by decree, the Executive Branch created an autonomous sanctions regime without any legal basis, violating the principle of separation of powers enshrined in Article 4 of the Constitution.

But the decision went beyond the challenged decree. Due to its connection to the case, the Constitutional Court also declared Article 116 of Law No. 3-19, which created the Bar Association, unconstitutional, considering that it improperly delegated to the Code of Ethics, a regulatory instrument, the determination of infractions and sanctions applicable to legal professionals, a matter that the Constitution deems non-delegable.

Both the Attorney General's Office and the Legal Counsel of the Executive Branch agreed with the plaintiff in their assessment: the regulation was unconstitutional. The disagreement between the parties was limited to the effects and scope of the decision.

A Year to Fill the Void

Aware that an immediate declaration would leave the legal profession without any disciplinary mechanism, the full court opted to defer the effects of the unconstitutionality for one year, starting from the date of notification of the ruling.

During this period, the National Congress is formally urged to approve a law that establishes, "expressly, clearly, and precisely," the infractions and sanctions applicable to the practice of law, in accordance with the principles of legality, specificity, proportionality, and reasonableness.

Three Justices Dissent from the Deferral

Justices Miguel Valera Montero, José Alejandro Ayuso, and Amaury A. Reyes Torres issued dissenting opinions. While they agreed with the declaration of unconstitutionality, they disagreed with the postponement: in their view, allowing a sanctions regime issued by an incompetent authority to remain in effect for a year amounts to a provisional validation of the unconstitutionality, directly affecting the fundamental rights of lawyers who could be sanctioned during that period.

Justices Alba Luisa Beard Marcos and Manuel Ulises Bonnelly Vega did not participate in the deliberation or the vote, for reasons stipulated by law. The ruling was approved in plenary session on February 5, 2026, and published on March 11.

A Conflict with Precedents

The Constitutional Court's decision did not arise in a vacuum. The plaintiff herself, Lilia Fernández León, was involved in a previous conflict with the Dominican Bar Association (CARD) that highlighted the weaknesses of the disciplinary system now declared unconstitutional.

In August 2025, the Superior Administrative Court annulled a disciplinary trial that the Dominican Bar Association (CARD) intended to conduct against Fernández León and two other lawyers, after accepting an injunction that alleged multiple due process violations. Weeks earlier, the Bar Association's own national prosecutor had denied that any formal disciplinary proceedings were underway against these professionals, even though the president of CARD, Trajano Vidal Potentini, had referred the matter to the Disciplinary Tribunal.