In recent months, Spain has been engulfed in a fervid debate concerning the judicial actions against State Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz.

This issue has stirred discussions across political, legal, and social spheres nationwide, permeating institutions from the highest echelons of government to the streets of towns and villages.

At the heart of the controversy is the legal intricacy surrounding the revelation of secrets.

Historically, determining what constitutes a 'secret' has been fraught with complexity.

Legal doctrine largely agrees that anything confidential should be considered a secret.

This raises further questions about what qualifies as confidential.

Confidentiality is broadly agreed upon as information sensitive to the confider—meaning anything whose disclosure could potentially harm an individual's economic, moral, physical, or fundamental rights.

However, further complicating matters is the trend towards shifting confidentiality from content to its medium.

Article 5 of the Code of Ethics for the Legal Profession attempted to expand confidentiality to items like an attorney's email, regardless of content.

However, the revised Article 22 of the General Statute of the Legal Profession in 2021 counteracts this, emphasizing that confidentiality applies strictly to professional exchanges.

Complicating this scenario is the issue of criminal plea deals, a grey area in legal practice.

These negotiations, often shrouded in informal understandings, demand formal procedural adherence to ensure fairness and legality.

A notable incident involves a February 2, 2024, email from Carlos Neira, the attorney for Alberto González Amador—a notable figure linked to Madrid's political elite—confessing multiple offenses hoping for a legal deal to avoid trial.

For a plea deal to become legally binding, it requires a precise accusation and a documented agreement between the prosecution and defense, creating a formal incident.

Only under these conditions are discussions protected by confidentiality.

However, such protocols were not observed in Neira’s email, rendering the correspondence unprotected by legal safeguards.

The controversy does not hinge solely on whether the email was confidential; the prosecutor is bound by law, not the legal profession's code.

Moreover, for an agreement of plea bargaining to proceed, it must be initiated and agreed upon formally by both parties.

Additionally, the role of Neira as legal counsel is questioned.

His approach contradicts professional due diligence, potentially compromising his client by prematurely exposing sensitive information to the prosecutor, exacerbating the attorney-client trust.

This situation leaves unanswered questions about the professional conduct of Neira and the role of the Madrid Bar Association in either supporting or reprimanding actions contrary to ethical standards.

Some commentators, including figures from the political sphere, have criticized such professional lapses, underscoring the need for rigorous adherence to legal norms.

As Spain’s Justice Minister embarks on reforms, ensuring due process in plea deals emerges as a crucial focal point to preserve the integrity of legal proceedings and safeguard against unethical practices.