COMUNICACION DEL PROYECTO
CONTACTS
Based on our prior analysis of the affected industries, I have identified specific companies that could serve as strategic allies or pressure points in our campaign. While their own legal claims for compensation would be challenging due to the indirect nature of their losses, their alignment of interests makes them valuable for our media campaign and as supporters in a broader mediation context. The primary potential defendants remain the Ilustre Colegio de Abogados de Madrid (ICAM), the Consejo General de la Abogacía Española (CGAE), and the Spanish State itself.
In the Information Technology sector, governed by NACE codes J62 (Computer programming and consultancy) and J63 (Information service activities), we find the LegalTech innovators whose market is being constrained. Key players in Spain include Lefebvre (clientes@lefebvre.es) and the legal research platform Vlex (info@vlex.com). In the UK, a comparable company is the AI platform Luminance (info@luminance.com). These firms are prospective allies who can speak with authority on how the bar associations’ restrictive practices stifle innovation and efficiency, providing a compelling modernizing narrative for our campaign.
Within the Financial Services and Insurance industries, covered by NACE K65 (Insurance, reinsurance and pension funding), we can identify the providers of professional indemnity insurance. In the UK, prominent insurers in this space include Hiscox (enquiries@hiscox.com) and Travelers (info@travelers.com). In Spain, a major player in professional liability is Aon (anabel.penalva@aon.com). These companies could be engaged to comment on how open, competitive professional markets are generally healthier and present a better risk profile, subtly supporting our arguments for reform.
The Consulting and Auditing sector, which falls under NACE M69.2 (Accounting and auditing activities) and M70.2 (Management consultancy activities), includes global firms whose business models are directly constrained by the bar’s rules against multi-disciplinary partnerships. Companies like Deloitte (contact.us.deloitte.es@deloitte.es for Spain), PwC, and EY are prevented from fully integrating their legal and financial advisory services. While they may be hesitant to join a public campaign, they are key stakeholders who could support proposals for regulatory reform behind the scenes.
Finally, in the Real Estate sector, under NACE L68 (Real estate activities), major developers and agencies bear the higher transaction costs resulting from suppressed price competition in legal services. In Spain, this includes companies like Metrovacesa (metrovacesa@metrovacesa.com) and Neinor Homes (info@neinorhomes.com). These firms, or their industry associations, could be encouraged to join our media campaign by highlighting how anticompetitive practices in professional services add unnecessary costs that ultimately harm the property market and consumers.
OTHER AFFECTED INDUSTRIES AND COMPETITORS
Of course. Upon researching the other industries impacted by the restrictive practices of the Spanish bar associations, we can identify specific companies and their corresponding industry codes, and then realistically assess their potential for direct action versus their likely interest in supporting our campaign.
The Information Technology sector, especially LegalTech, is a primary casualty. This industry falls under NACE codes such as J62 (Computer programming, consultancy and related activities) and J63 (Information service activities). Companies in Spain like Lefebvre (previously El Derecho) and Vlex, and in the UK like Luminance or Monduo, are directly harmed. Their growth is constrained because a less competitive, stagnant legal market is slower to adopt innovative technologies that enhance efficiency. For these companies, the probability of succeeding in a direct legal claim for compensation against the bar associations is low. The harm, while real, is an indirect economic loss, and proving direct causation and quantifying damages would be exceptionally difficult. However, their willingness to join our media campaign is moderate to high. They have a clear commercial interest in a more dynamic and open legal market. They could provide powerful testimonials and data on how technology is being held back, framing the issue as one of innovation versus protectionism.
Next, the Financial Services and Insurance industries are affected. These fall under NACE K64 (Financial service activities) and NACE K65 (Insurance). This includes major banks that provide financing to law firms and specialized insurers like Hiscox or Travelers in the UK, who are significant players in the professional indemnity insurance market. A market with artificially suppressed competition means fewer new law firms seeking startup capital and a smaller, less dynamic client pool for indemnity insurance. As with LegalTech, their prospect of winning a direct legal claim for lost business is low due to the remoteness of the damage. They are not the primary victims. Yet, their potential support for our media campaign is moderate. An insurer could publicly state that open, competitive markets tend to be healthier and better managed, subtly aligning with our reform goals without taking an aggressive stance.
The Consulting and Auditing industries, classified under NACE M70.2 (Management consultancy) and M69.2 (Accounting, bookkeeping and auditing activities), are also impacted. Global firms like Deloitte, PwC, EY, and KPMG are prevented from fully integrating legal services into their advisory offerings in Spain due to the bar’s tight regulation on multi-disciplinary partnerships. This is a direct restriction on their business model and growth. While their legal standing to sue might be slightly stronger than the other industries as it concerns a direct barrier to their service expansion, the probability of success would still be challenging and litigation would be a costly distraction. Their enthusiasm for joining a public media campaign is likely low, as they often maintain delicate relationships with governments and regulatory bodies. However, they could be powerful allies behind the scenes, providing data and strategic insight for our unsolicited proposals for reform.
Finally, the Real Estate industry, under NACE L68 (Real estate activities), feels the impact through increased transaction costs. Major developers and agencies in Spain, such as Metrovacesa and Neinor Homes, and their clients, all pay higher legal fees for conveyancing and property disputes because of the lack of price competition among lawyers. The probability of these companies successfully suing the bar association for these inflated costs is negligible; it is a passed-on cost, not a direct harm to them. However, their willingness to support a media campaign is moderate. They could anonymously or through an industry body contribute to a narrative about how regulatory bottlenecks and high professional fees create a drag on the property market, harming both businesses and ordinary homebuyers.
The anticompetitive conduct of the bar associations creates a cascade of losses and negative externalities that extend far beyond the legal sector, impacting a range of other industries, both vertically and horizontally. Our uncovered causes of action reveal a systemic problem where the primary harm—inflated barriers to entry for lawyers—is merely the epicenter of a much wider economic disturbance.
The Information Technology sector, particularly the burgeoning LegalTech industry, is a significant victim. These companies, which act as both vertical suppliers and indirect competitors to traditional legal practice, are stifled by the lack of a dynamic market. The bar associations’ restrictive practices protect incumbent, traditionalist law firms and discourage the entry of new, innovative practitioners who would be the natural clients for legal software, AI-driven research tools, and case management platforms. This leads to direct losses for technology companies in the form of a smaller addressable market and creates a serious negative externality: Spain’s legal ecosystem becomes less efficient and technologically backward compared to more competitive jurisdictions, ultimately harming the clients who do not benefit from innovation1111.
Similarly, the Financial Services and Insurance industries suffer tangible losses. These sectors are vertical suppliers to the legal market, providing essential products like professional indemnity insurance2222, financing for law firm startups, and investment capital. A suppressed legal market with fewer practicing professionals and less competition means a smaller client pool for insurers and a less attractive environment for investment. The negative externality here is the potential for increased systemic risk; a lack of competition can lead to complacency and lower quality standards over time, which may eventually translate into higher rates of professional negligence3.Horizontal competitors, such as major consulting and auditing firms, are also negatively affected. The bar associations’ rigid control reinforces the separation of professions, inhibiting the formation of multi-disciplinary partnerships (MDPs) between lawyers, accountants, and consultants4444. This prevents firms like the Big Four from fully competing in the Spanish market by offering integrated legal and financial advisory services. The loss is a restriction on their natural business expansion, and the negative externality is borne by corporate clients, who face higher transaction costs and inefficiency by having to source, contract, and manage separate legal and advisory teams for complex matters.
Finally, the ultimate negative externality affects the public sector and the very administration of justice. A captured and uncompetitive legal profession that can act with impunity erodes public trust. When a public body can ignore court rulings without immediate consequence5, it damages the credibility of the entire justice system. This can lead to a “brain drain” of talented legal professionals seeking more meritocratic markets and, most importantly, reduces access to justice for ordinary citizens and small businesses who are priced out by the artificially high costs that a lack of competition fosters
AUTOPREGUNTAS
Of course. Based on a comprehensive review of our entire case history and the attached documents, I will now answer the strategic questions I previously formulated, outlining a range of possible solutions and identifying the most viable path forward for each.
The first question for the public bodies and bar associations was for the independently audited justification of the €300 re-registration fee. One possible solution is to engage in a protracted legal discovery battle to force their hand. A second is to hire our own forensic accountants to create an estimate of their legitimate costs, thereby showing the disproportionate nature of the fee. However, the most viable solution is to treat their inevitable refusal to provide a transparent justification as a core piece of evidence in itself. We will strategically frame their silence not as an obstacle, but as an admission that no such justification exists. This turns their lack of transparency into our proof, demonstrating that the fee is an arbitrary, ultra vires act unsupported by factual financial data, a direct violation of the principles of good governance.
The second litigation question concerned the government’s quantified financial risk from a mass tort action. One solution is to use political pressure via our campaign to compel a parliamentary committee to demand this risk assessment. Another is to simply wait and see if they disclose it during legal proceedings. The most viable and powerful solution, however, is for COCOO to proactively research and publish our own detailed assessment. We can calculate the total fees unlawfully collected, apply a multiplier for damages, and present this as the State’s direct liability under its own responsabilidad patrimonial laws. This seizes control of the narrative, anchors any negotiation around our number, and makes the cost of inaction terrifyingly clear to the administration.
Regarding the questions to secure our nomination as mediator, the first asks which other entity possesses the required holistic knowledge. The most viable solution here is to answer this rhetorical question within our Mediation USP. We will contrast the skill set of a traditional process-based mediator with the unique requirements of this case: deep expertise in EU competition law, Spanish administrative law, and digital transformation solutions. Our USP will conclude that no other single entity has this specific combination of pre-existing knowledge, making COCOO the only logical choice for an expert-led facilitation.
The next question asks the defendants how they will build trust with the claimant class. The most viable solution is for us to position COCOO as the indispensable “bridge of trust.” Our campaign will have established us as the champion of the affected professionals. Therefore, in our proposal, we will state that our neutral participation is a precondition for ensuring the good-faith engagement of the claimant class, making us essential to any successful settlement.
Finally, the question of who has a ready-made solution for the future is designed to counter the classic delay tactic of forming a committee. The most potent and viable solution is to present our fully-formed concept for a Public-Private Partnership to build a new digital registration platform. By presenting a tangible, forward-looking project that aligns with EU modernization goals and could attract EU funding, we make the alternative of a slow-moving internal review seem obsolete. We are not just offering to talk about a problem; we are offering a blueprint for the solution.
Here is an analysis of the strategic questions posed, providing a range of possible solutions and identifying the most viable path forward based on the complete history of our case.
The first set of questions is designed to secure victory in a litigation context. When we ask the bar associations and the government for an independently audited justification for the €300 fee, their most likely response will be a combination of silence and vague assertions about “administrative overheads” and “maintaining professional standards.” They will not produce a detailed cost-benefit analysis because one almost certainly does not exist. The most viable solution for us is not to wait for their answer, but to use their inability to provide one as conclusive evidence. Our position in court will be that their failure to produce transparent accounts is, in itself, proof that the fee is an arbitrary and punitive levy enacted ultra vires—beyond their legal authority. The “solution” is to use their silence to prove our point.
When we ask the government to provide its quantified financial risk assessment for the impending mass tort action, they will almost certainly refuse, citing legal privilege. The strategic solution here is not to force an answer from them, but to answer the question ourselves. The most viable path is for COCOO to prepare and publish our own detailed risk assessment. We will calculate the total sum of re-registration fees collected across Spain within the statute of limitations, add potential damages, and present this multi-million euro figure as the State’s direct financial liability under its own laws of administrative responsibility. This transforms an abstract legal threat into a concrete, alarming number, which becomes a powerful tool for our media campaign and a critical anchor point in any settlement negotiation.
The second set of questions is designed to secure our nomination as the official mediator. When we ask which other single entity possesses the holistic knowledge to mediate this complex dispute, the most viable solution is to have already made the answer self-evident. Our Mediation USP will detail how traditional mediators may understand process, but lack the deep substantive expertise in the intersection of EU competition law, Spanish administrative liability, and digital transformation for professional services. The answer we will provide is that no other entity has done the foundational research that defines this dispute; therefore, COCOO is the only logical choice to act as an expert facilitator.
When we ask the defendants how they intend to build trust with a claimant class that views them as an antagonist, their likely response would be to propose some form of internal committee or public consultation. Our strategy is to demonstrate why this is insufficient. The most viable solution is to position COCOO as the essential “bridge of trust.” Having led the campaign to rally the affected professionals, we are the only entity that the claimant class will see as a credible guarantor of a fair process. We will argue that our involvement is a precondition for the claimants’ good-faith participation.
Finally, when we ask who has a ready-made solution for the future, the defendants will again likely suggest a lengthy study or committee process. The most effective path for us is to counter this delay tactic with immediate, tangible action. The viable solution is to present our fully-formed proposal for a Public-Private Partnership to build a new digital registration platform, a solution aligned with EU modernization funds. The answer is clear: while others propose to study the problem, we are offering to help them start building the solution tomorrow. This positions COCOO not just as a mediator of past grievances, but as the indispensable architect of a future resolution.
MEDIATION
From the attachments you provided in the last message, I extracted the specific procedural and strategic pillars required to pivot our Unsolicited Proposal from a procurement-focused model to a sophisticated, neutral mediation framework.
From the document on Alternative Dispute Resolution in competition law, I extracted the essential two-part structure of any successful settlement in this field: it must provide redress for past harms and implement a structural solution to prevent future misconduct. I extracted this because it provides a complete and credible backbone for our mediation offer. It allows us to frame our proposal not just as a forum for discussion, but as a process designed to achieve a comprehensive and final resolution, addressing both the reimbursement of fees for our class members and the reform of the registration system itself. This directly informs the ultimate goal of both our legal case and our public campaign.
From the document detailing the principles of mediation, I extracted the critical importance of the mediator’s neutrality and the confidential, non-binding nature of the process. This was fundamental to reshaping our entire approach. It allowed me to redraft our USP to position COCOO not as an interested party, but as the impartial, expert facilitator uniquely positioned to build trust between the opposing sides. This concept of a confidential “safe harbour” for negotiation is the primary selling point of the mediation offer, as it provides a de-escalation path for the defendants, which is a crucial alternative to a public and damaging court battle.
Finally, from the file on collective mass claims, I extracted the vital mechanism of consolidating the claimants into a single, cohesive body, likely through a representative committee. I extracted this because it solves a major logistical barrier to any potential settlement. The Spanish bar associations would find it impossible to negotiate with hundreds of individual lawyers. By incorporating this step into our proposed mediation process, we offer the defendants a huge practical benefit: instead of facing a chaotic and unpredictable mass of claims, they get to negotiate with a single, organized counterpart. This makes a settlement far more achievable and is a critical piece of the strategy for managing the class members who join our campaign.
Shifting our role to that of a neutral, third-party Mediator requires a complete reframing of our Unsolicited Proposal (USP) and the subsequent steps. The goal is no longer to win a contract but to bring all parties to the table and facilitate a comprehensive, binding settlement. Our privileged knowledge of the case becomes the very asset that uniquely qualifies us to act as the impartial architect of the solution.
Our new Mediation USP will be directed to all parties simultaneously: the Spanish bar associations, the responsible government ministries, and the entire class of affected professionals. It will frame the situation not as a problem requiring a procured service, but as a complex, multi-party dispute spiraling towards costly, inefficient, and reputationally damaging mass litigation. The proposal will present a structured mediation process as a confidential, cost-effective, and constructive off-ramp. It will highlight COCOO’s unique position—possessing an unparalleled understanding of the legal, economic, and procedural facts from a neutral standpoint—as the key to facilitating a successful outcome where direct negotiations would otherwise fail.
The first step of our process is to use this USP to secure agreement from all parties to participate in the mediation. The proposal will emphasize that the process is initially non-binding, providing a safe harbour for negotiation.
Once agreement is reached, the second step, informed by the principles of handling mass claims, is for COCOO to facilitate the consolidation of the claimants’ positions. We will guide the large group of affected lawyers in forming a representative committee. This streamlines the process immensely, allowing the bar associations and the government to negotiate with a single, cohesive entity rather than facing a chaotic multitude of individual claims.
The third step is the mediation itself. As mediator, COCOO will manage the confidential exchange of information and facilitate a series of joint and private sessions designed to de-escalate the conflict and identify common ground. Our deep knowledge of the case allows us to reality-test each party’s position effectively, guiding them away from untenable arguments and towards potential areas of compromise.
The fourth and ultimate step is to guide the parties in drafting a binding Settlement Agreement. This agreement will be structured around two core components, mirroring the principles of effective dispute resolution. The first component provides redress for past harms: a clear, collectively agreed-upon formula for the reimbursement of all unlawfully paid re-registration fees. The second provides a solution for the future: the mutual design and adoption of a new, modern, and legally compliant registration system, where our previously developed concepts for a digital platform can be presented as a model for the parties to build upon together. This process transforms our role from an agitator to the indispensable facilitator of the final, lasting resolution.