Editorial: thirty euros for negotiating without agreement do not recognise the duty-solicitor scheme's work

This is an editorial by the AGENTE LEX newsroom. It expresses the portal's opinion.

Since April 2025, in most civil matters a negotiation must be attempted before suing. Organic Law 1/2025 turned those appropriate dispute resolution methods into a precondition for suing. Duty-solicitor lawyers took on that work from day one, although for months there was no state-level scale for it.

The General Council of the Legal Profession warned of this in April 2025: it asked for that activity to be paid adequately and fairly, whether or not there was an agreement, and for the Ministry to create a specific scale. In February 2026, Royal Decree 63/2026 included legal assistance in ADR among what the free legal aid subsidy covers, and the Council reported the Ministry's commitment to reform the regulation to pay that activity at 125% of the procedure module.

That commitment has been kept. Royal Decree 824/2026, published in the BOE on 15 October and in force since the 16th, sets two figures:

• ADR with agreement: 125% of the amount applicable to the procedure.
• ADR without agreement: €30.

Progress that must be acknowledged

Paying for prior negotiation was essential. Without compensation, the precondition for suing risked becoming a barrier for those who cannot afford a lawyer, as the legal profession itself warned. The regulation now recognises that stage as professional work and sets a procedure to be paid for it: a file before the Free Legal Aid Commission and payment when the document proving the agreement or lack of agreement is submitted.

The reform goes in the same direction on other points. According to its preamble, out-of-court settlements go from 75% to 125% of the applicable amount, and prior employment conciliation with agreement is also compensated at 125%. It is a clear signal that the system wants to reward consensual solutions to conflicts, something we share.

The problem of the gap

The difference between the two figures is very large. And the outcome of a negotiation does not depend only on the lawyer conducting it.

A well-run negotiation requires studying the matter, preparing a reasonable proposal, communicating it by a means that leaves a record, replying to the other side and documenting the attempt. That work is the same whether the other party accepts or does not reply. Sometimes the professionally correct decision is not to accept a proposal that harms the client.

A scale that pays far more for agreement than for the attempt can send the wrong signal: that the success of a negotiation is measured by closing it, not by defending the legal aid beneficiary well. Nobody thinks duty-solicitor professionals will close worse deals to be paid more. But the rule should not create that tension.

What we propose

1. Review the figure for ADR without agreement so that it reflects the minimum work a documented attempt requires, which is what the law asks to be proven.
2. Publish data: how many ADR procedures are handled under the scheme, how many end in agreement and how much is paid for each type. Without that data, the debate on the amount will be one of impressions.
3. Set payment deadlines. The published text sets no maximum deadlines for payment, one of the demands the legal profession recalled in February.

The reform shows that dialogue between the Ministry and the legal profession can deliver results. Let us hope it also serves to correct this point.

We have explained the detail of the reform in the article on the new duty-solicitor modules and the prior negotiation requirement in the practical guide to ADR as a precondition for suing. More editorials in Opinion.