In a regulatory ecosystem that is changing at an ever-accelerating pace—marked by the continuous expansion of predicate offenses, still-unsettled case law, and new compliance requirements—companies are navigating an increasingly complex and often uncertain landscape. In this context, Giordanengo Avvocati Associati stands as a national point of reference in corporate criminal law and in the administrative liability of legal entities. Founded in 2000 by Attorney Cesare Giordanengo and now led by Attorneys Guglielmo Giordanengo and Roberto Calleri di Sala, the firm is a legal boutique that has built its reputation on stability, specialization, and a strong presence within corporate decision-making processes, working alongside companies, public administrations, and white-collar professionals.
by Roberta Imbimbo
Attorney Giordanengo, the firm was founded in 2000 with a very clear mission. What was the original vision?
The firm was established with the aim of becoming a highly specialized hub in corporate criminal law—a complex, technical field that is constantly evolving. From the outset, we invested in vertical expertise, building a team capable of providing top-level advisory and defense services not only to large corporations but also to small and medium-sized enterprises. Specialization was our strategic choice: focusing on a specific area allowed us to become a recognized, forward-looking legal boutique.
What elements distinguish you from your competitors?
Certainly, stability. For every mandate, we form a defense team consisting of at least two attorneys with specific experience in the subject matter of the case. This ensures expertise, continuity, and a comprehensive perspective. We primarily work alongside companies and white-collar professionals, but also with public administrations. Personally, I sit on several boards of directors and supervisory bodies. This dual role—practicing in court and serving on boards—allows us to understand corporate dynamics and vulnerabilities from the inside. It is a significant added value in corporate criminal law and, above all, in the administrative liability of legal entities.
The administrative liability of legal entities is now one of the most crucial issues for companies. Why is it so complex?
Because it is a central discipline that has not yet fully stabilized. Introduced in 2001, it marked a true paradigm shift: companies can be held criminally liable when a crime is committed in their interest. This fundamentally transformed the role of companies in criminal proceedings. However, the regulatory framework is deliberately broad and flexible, and over the years it has given rise to very different—sometimes even conflicting—judicial interpretations. In addition, the list of predicate offenses continues to expand. Each new offense requires immediate updates to Organizational and Management Models, demanding ongoing commitment from companies. It is a living, dynamic field: governing it requires vision, method, and continuous updating.
There is much discussion about the reform of Legislative Decree 231 currently under government review. Is it really urgent?
Yes, the reform is necessary. After more than twenty years, the 231 framework needs greater clarity and systematic coherence. Today it suffers from a sometimes disordered expansion of predicate offenses, which risks weakening the preventive function of compliance models. Clearer criteria are needed to assess the effectiveness of Organizational and Management Models, a more rigorous selection of relevant offenses, and a clearer recognition of the role of the Supervisory Body, which has assumed enormous importance in corporate dynamics over the years. A well-structured reform would make the regulation more predictable and better aligned with the real needs of companies.
Turning to the Supervisory Body: why has the role of the criminal lawyer become so central?
Because Legislative Decree 231 introduced an entirely new role: the criminal lawyer as an integral part of corporate governance. Not only a courtroom defender, but also a supervisor of internal procedures, a guarantor of control processes, and an observer of corporate dynamics. As a member of Supervisory Bodies, I am responsible for verifying that the company is organized in a way that makes the commission of crimes as difficult as possible. This role requires refined legal expertise, but also organizational analysis skills, risk assessment, leadership, and the ability to engage in dialogue with management. At the same time, a new profession has emerged: the criminal lawyer specialized in defending legal entities in criminal proceedings. A field that did not exist before 2001 and that is now among the most technical and strategic areas of practice.
What skills must a law firm have today to deal seriously with Legislative Decree 231?
Three things are essential: specialization, method, and continuous updating. Legislative Decree 231 is constantly evolving and requires a team that stays up to date with regulatory developments, the latest case law, and organizational best practices. Knowing the law is not enough: one must understand companies, production processes, internal dynamics, and sector-specific risks. 231 compliance is a technical and sensitive field that demands expertise, rigor, and the ability to anticipate change. This is exactly what our firm is committed to providing every day.
