N. 1 (2026)
Essays

Reorganizing Justice: The Implementation of the Trial Office in Three Tuscan Courts

pdf (Italiano)
Dario Raspanti
University of Florence
Giulia Cavallini
University of Florence
Annalisa Tonarelli
University of Florence
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54103/1972-5760/32265

Published 2026-07-16

Keywords

  • trial office,
  • judges,
  • court,
  • organisation,
  • professions

How to Cite

Raspanti, D., Cavallini, G., & Tonarelli, A. (2026). Reorganizing Justice: The Implementation of the Trial Office in Three Tuscan Courts. Sociologia Del Diritto, 53(1). https://doi.org/10.54103/1972-5760/32265

Copyright (c) 2026 Dario Raspanti, Giulia Cavallini, Annalisa Tonarelli

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Abstract

This study analyses the implementation of the Trial Office (Ufficio per il processo, UPP) in five civil sections across three Tuscan courts, examining its effects on the organisation of judicial work. Drawing on 97 interviews with judges, court officials, and administrative staff, the article reconstructs how Trial Office clercks (FUPP) have been integrated into court sections and identifies the factors explaining the variations in the organisational solutions adopted. Four ideal-typical models emerge, ranging from the employment of FUPP exclusively in administrative tasks to the autonomous management of mini-dockets characterised by highly routinised and standardised activities. The observed differences depend on structural factors, such as staff shortages in court registries; discretionary factors linked to judges’ attitudes; and relational factors, particularly the presence of pre-existing communities of practice. The study shows that, in the cases analysed, the effectiveness of the UPP is strongly shaped by local contexts and organisational culture, ultimately reducing its transformative potential.
pdf (Italiano)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Abbott, A. D. (1988), The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor, Chicago, University of Chicago.
  2. Ahuja, S. (2023), Professional Identity Threats in Interprofessional Collaborations: A Case of Architects in Professional Service Firms, Journal of Management Studies, 60, 2, pp. 428-453.
  3. Allen, D. (2000), Doing Occupational Demarcation: The ‘Boundary-Work’ of Nurse Managers in a District General Hospital, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 29, pp. 326-356.
  4. Biland, E., Steinmetz, H. (2017), Are Judges Street-Level Bureaucrats? Evidence from French and Canadian Family Courts, Law & Social Inquiry, 42, 2, pp. 298-324.
  5. Blackler, F. (1995), Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organization: An Overview and Interpretation, Organization Studies, 16, 6, pp. 1021-1046.
  6. Braccialini, R. (2020), L’Ufficio per il processo tra storia, illusioni, delusioni e prospettive, Questione Giustizia, 01 giugno 2020.
  7. Braccialini, R. (2021), Gli uffici per i processi: quattro nodi politici, un’incognita, Questione Giustizia, 06 giugno 2021.
  8. Brock, D. M. (2006), The changing professional organization: A review of competing archetypes, International Journal of Management Reviews, 8, 3, pp. 57-174.
  9. Brown, A. D. (2015), Identities and Identity Work in Organizations, British Academy Management, 17, 1, pp. 20-40.
  10. Catino, M. (2012), Capire le organizzazioni, Bologna, Il Mulino.
  11. Crozier, M., Friedberg, E. (1978), Attore sociale e sistema: sociologia dell’azione organizzata, Milano, ETAS Libri.
  12. Curry, G., Finn, R., Martin, G. (2012), Role Transition and the Interaction of Relational and Social Identity: New Nursing Roles in the English NHS, Organization Studies, 31, 7, pp. 941-961.
  13. Dallara, C., Lacchei, A. (2021), Street-level Bureaucrats and Coping Mechanisms. The Unexpected Role of Italian Judges in Asylum Policy Implementation, South European Society and Politics, 26, 1, pp. 83-108.
  14. Dallara, C., Michetti, G., Di Sivo, M. (2022), L’organizzazione della giustizia alla prova dell’emergenza COVID-19. Il ruolo dei presidenti di tribunale nella definizione delle strategie organizzative, Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche, 1, pp. 93-128.
  15. Di Florio, A. (2023), Il decreto legislativo 10 ottobre 2022, n. 151: norme di attuazione della legge 26 novembre 2021, n. 206 e della legge 27 settembre 2021, n. 134. Prime valutazioni sull’Ufficio per il Processo alla prova dei fatti nella Corte di Cassazione, Questione Giustizia, 23 gennaio 2023.
  16. Evetts, J. (2013), Professionalism: Value and ideology, Current Sociology, 61, 5-6, pp. 778-796.
  17. Fabbrini, B. (2013), L’Ufficio per il Processo, in Sciacca, M., a cura di, La Giustizia in bilico, Aracne Editore.
  18. Gilardi, G., a cura di, (2004), Processo e organizzazione. Le “riforme” possibili per la giustizia civile, Milano, Franco Angeli.
  19. Gorman, E., Sandefur, R. L. (2011), “‘Golden Age,’ Quiescence, and Revival: How the Sociology of Professions Became the Study of Knowledge-Based Work, Work and Occupations, 38, 3, pp. 275-302.
  20. Governo Italiano (2021), Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza (PNRR). Roma, Governo Italiano.
  21. Heinzmann, H., Mastio, E. A., Ahuja, S. (2020), Stuck in defensive professionalism: Undermining organizational change in an intellectual property law firm, Journal of Professions and Organization, 7, 2, pp. 117-133.
  22. Hughes, E. (1962), Good People and Dirty Work, in Social Problems, 10, 1, pp. 3-11.
  23. Kellogg, K. C. (2014), Brokerage Professions and Implementing Reform in an Age of Experts, American Sociological Review, 79, 5, pp. 912-941.
  24. Kroezen, M., Mistiaen, P., van Dijk, L., Groenewegen, P. P., Francke, A. L. (2014), Negotiating jurisdiction in the workplace: A multiple-case study of nurse prescribing in hospital settings, Social Science & Medicine, 117, pp. 107-115.
  25. Langley, A., Lindberg, K., Mørk, B. E., Nicolini, D., Raviola, E., Walter, L. (2019), Boundary Work among Groups, Occupations, and Organizations: From Cartography to Process, Academy of Management Annals, 13, 2, pp. 704-736.
  26. Lave, J., Wenger, E., (1991), Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge University Press.
  27. Liberati, E. G. (2017), Separating, replacing, intersecting: The influence of context on the construction of the medical-nursing boundary, Social Science & Medicine, 172, pp. 135-143.
  28. Lucarelli, P., a cura di, (2024), Giustizia sostenibile. Sfide organizzative e tecnologiche per una nuova professionalità, Tribunale di Firenze, Tribunale di Firenze University Press.
  29. March, J. G., Simon, H. A., a cura di, (1993), Organizations (Second edition), New York, Wiley.
  30. Martin, G. P., Currie, G., Finn, R. (2009), Reconfiguring or reproducing intra-professional boundaries? Specialist expertise, generalist knowledge and the ‘modernization’ of the medical workforce, Social Science and Medicine, 68, 7, pp. 1191-1198.
  31. Mintzberg, H., (1979), The Structuring of Organizations, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.
  32. Puranam, P. I., Alexy, O., Reitzig, M. (2014), What’s “New” About New Forms of Organizing?, Academy of Management Review, 39, 2, pp. 162-180.
  33. Scott, R. W. (2003), Organizations. Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (5th edition), Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall.
  34. Tonarelli, A. (2024), Risorse umane e professioni nell’ufficio per il processo, in Lucarelli, P., a cura di, Giustizia sostenibile. Sfide organizzative e tecnologiche per una nuova professionalità, Tribunale di Firenze, Firenze University Press, pp. 47-70.
  35. Verzelloni, L., (2019), Pratiche di sapere. I rituali dell’innovazione nella giustizia italiana, Soveria Mannelli, Rubbettino.
  36. Verzelloni, L., Viapiana, F. (2016), L’ufficio per il processo. Dall’idea originaria alle prime sperimentazioni: il caso del Tribunale di Firenze e l’impatto sul lavoro del giudice, Bologna, IRSIG-CNR.
  37. Weber, C. E., Kortkamp, C., Maurer, I., Hummers, E. (2022), Boundary Work in Response to Professionals’ Contextual Constraints: Micro-strategies in Interprofessional Collaboration, Organization Studies, 43, 9, pp. 1453-1477.
  38. Zan, S., (2003), Fascicoli e tribunali. Il processo civile in una prospettiva organizzativa, Bologna, Il Mulino.
  39. Zan, S., (2011), Le organizzazioni complesse, Roma, Carocci.