Two major business environment organizations, the Concordia Employers’ Confederation and the National Confederation for Women’s Entrepreneurship (CONAF), criticize the legislative proposal that would require companies to use lawyers to draft certain contracts. The employers’ organizations warn that the measure would bring additional costs, limit the activities of other professions, and could even affect digital services and applications based on artificial intelligence.
Concordia calls for the withdrawal of the proposal, while CONAF requests reconsideration of the provisions and an evaluation of the economic and legal effects before Parliament continues the debate.
The legislative proposal B563/2026, registered in the Senate on October 14 and known as “Mandatory Lawyer”, extends the activities reserved for the legal profession and introduces the obligation that certain contracts for which the law requires written form under private signature must be drafted by lawyers.
The initiators have requested the debate and voting of the proposal under an emergency procedure. For now, the new obligations are not in force.
What the employers' organizations contest
- Additional costs for companies. Companies could be required to pay lawyers to draft certain documents that they currently prepare themselves or with the help of their own employees. Small companies could be the most affected.
- Restriction of other professions' activities. Accountants, legal advisors, and other specialists could lose the right to carry out certain activities that they currently perform legally.
- Risks for digital services and AI. Accounting applications, human resources platforms, and AI assistants that provide personalized legal responses could fall under the new restrictions. ANIS warns even about the possibility of suspending some services.
- Possible criminal sanctions. Concordia and ANIS argue that some provisions could expose accountants, lawyers, and digital service providers to the risk of criminal penalties.
- Lack of cost analysis. The organizations claim that the initiators have not evaluated how many companies and contracts would be affected or how much the implementation of the new rules would cost.
- Lack of consultation and unclear law. The employers' organizations state that they were not consulted before the proposal was submitted and request clarifications regarding the targeted documents, companies' obligations, and the consequences of non-compliance.
Concordia calls for the withdrawal of the proposal
The Concordia Employers' Confederation argues that the initiative would introduce additional expenses for routine company operations, such as drafting an addendum, changes at the Trade Register, or concluding a leasing contract.
The organization draws attention to the fact that the proposal would assign to lawyers activities currently legally performed by other professionals, including accountants and legal advisors.
"We talk about simplification, debureaucratization, competitiveness, but we see a rule that changes how every company in Romania signs its contracts. It was submitted without calculating the costs and without asking anyone who will have to pay. Companies did not ask for it. When they need a lawyer, they hire one from the open market," says Paul Aparaschivei, executive director of Concordia.
He calls for the withdrawal of the proposal and consultation with companies and affected professions.
In turn, the Software and Services Industry Employers' Association (ANIS) warns that the overly broad wording of activities reserved for lawyers could also affect applications that provide users with personalized legal information.
According to the organization, such services could be suspended through a procedure lasting only five days. "We are losing competitiveness precisely in one of the sectors with the greatest growth potential for the Romanian economy," warns Corina Vasile, executive director of ANIS.
CONAF: New obligations during a difficult period for companies
CONAF, for its part, considers that the proposal limits entrepreneurs' freedom to decide how to organize their activity and could impose additional obligations and costs on companies without it being clear whether these are truly necessary.
The Confederation specifies that it does not contest the role of lawyers in preventing disputes and protecting companies but argues that turning legal assistance into an obligation must be justified.
The organization invokes Law 245/2020, which transposes a European directive regarding the evaluation of restrictions applicable to regulated professions, and asks Parliament to demonstrate why the new rules are necessary and whether there are less restrictive solutions.
CONAF also requests clarification of the targeted contracts, companies' right to draft their own documents, and the responsibilities assigned to other professions.
CONAF's founding president, Cristina Chiriac, points out that the initiative appears at a difficult time for the business environment. According to data she cites, in the first nine months of the year, registrations of limited liability companies dropped by 24.5%, insolvencies increased by 12.1%, and over 5,200 economic entities entered insolvency.
"We do not contest the value of legal assistance. We contest the assumption that a useful service must, by definition, become mandatory. There is a difference between legal protection and administrative constraint that the legislator has the obligation to justify," says Cristina Chiriac.
"Before imposing new obligations on companies, Parliament must answer three questions: What problem are we solving? Why are the existing rules not sufficient? And why should entrepreneurs bear an additional restriction to obtain the promised protection?" she adds.
CONAF calls for an assessment of costs for companies, especially SMEs, analysis of less restrictive alternatives, and consultation with employers' organizations before finalizing the proposal.
The Confederation requests the elimination or reformulation of provisions for which the necessity and effects on the business environment cannot be properly justified.