The possible assumption of a process in a preferential manner entails a true pronouncement on competence, to the point that it can dispose of the guarantee of the natural judge and, therefore, it is an interlocutory decision, that is to say, of substantial content, which must necessarily be issued by the plenary session of the National Commission for Judicial Discipline (CNDJ).
That said, there is no rule that gives the CNDJ the power to exercise preferential power with respect to disciplinary proceedings brought once morest lawyers in the exercise of their profession. The disciplinary procedure applicable to lawyers is regulated by Law 1123 of 2007, a regulatory body that in no way provides for the figure of preferential power.
And while it is true that the Disciplinary Code, in force since March 29, 2022, established that the National Commission of Judicial Discipline is “holder of the preferential exercise of the disciplinary jurisdictional power” with respect to any process of competence of the sectional commissions of judicial discipline, it is no less true that this power only refers to those causes regulated by Title IX of Book III of that codification, relative to the “regime of the officials of the Judicial Branch”.
For this reason, the processes processed once morest all those disciplinary subjects not included in the list that incorporates article 239 of Law 1952 of 2019 cannot be initiated, assumed or continued by the CNDJ. This is the case of lawyers subject to discipline in the exercise of their profession, who have their own regime, regulated by the Lawyer’s Statute (Law 1123/07), which is not covered by the scope of application of the General Disciplinary Code (M. P.: Mauricio Fernando Rodríguez Tamayo).
