The clash between lawyers and justice institutions enters a decisive phase today. The General Council of Advocacy is expected to decide whether the boycott will continue or be halted, after the Administrative Court of Appeal suspended the decision on the boycott.
The meeting expected to determine the continuation of the boycott
The General Council of Advocacy is meeting today to make a decision on the fate of the lawyers’ boycott, at a time when the issue has also moved onto the judicial level.
The decision comes amid a climate of institutional tension, where the clash is not only about a temporary measure, but also about how the limits of practicing the profession are being interpreted and the interventions that, according to representatives of the lawyers, affect its functioning.
The Appeal suspended the decision following a request by an association
The meeting comes after the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal, which suspended the lawyers’ boycott.
The decision was made on the basis of a request submitted by the Anti-Corruption Lawyers Association, taking the debate to another level of confrontation among actors within the justice system itself.
The Chamber of Advocacy reviewed the next steps after the decision
A day earlier, the Steering Committee of the National Chamber of Advocacy held an emergency meeting to review the situation created after the Appeal’s decision.
The head of the National Chamber of Advocacy, Maksim Haxhia, said that further legal steps are being analyzed, while the written reasoning of the court’s decision is also awaited. According to him, the Chamber’s structures will provide their suggestions before the General Council takes its final position.
Also on the table: a lawsuit against the GJKKO regulation
According to Haxhia, one of the options under review is filing a lawsuit with the Court of Appeal to seek the annulment and suspension of the GJKKO regulation dated September 1, 2026.
According to the version of the Chamber of Advocacy, this regulation affects the legal profession and the media. It is precisely on this objection that the next decision is expected to be built, which may determine whether the boycott will remain in force or be halted.
Today’s decision is expected to set the next direction of a clash that has now moved from a professional reaction to an open procedural and judicial battle.
At its core, it remains to be seen whether the lawyers’ governing bodies will choose to continue the boycott or pursue another path of confrontation with justice institutions.