IDENTITY CONTROL · 25 SEPTEMBER 2026
This record supplements the general institutional map and separates ICAM, CCACM, ICALPA, ICATF, the Consejo Canario de Colegios de Abogados and CGAE. Evidence may be common; competence, files and responsibility remain individualised.
Madrid · first instance
Ilustre Colegio de la Abogacía de Madrid.
Core references: 434/26; 493/26 as technical intake for the first appeal; 1487/26; 1566/26 as the technical registration associated with the second appeal.
Located decisions: 434/26 archive on limitation; 1487/26 archive through three distinct treatments plus territorial referral to Tenerife.
Madrid · appeal
Consejo de Colegios de Abogados de la Comunidad de Madrid.
Core reference: 193/2026, the appeal from the 434/26 archive.
The 4 June order formally opened the appeal and served the interested lawyers. Two separate 25 August 2026 acknowledgements confirm receipt of a substantive supplement and its graphic annexes. No final decision has been located.
Canary Islands · Las Palmas
Ilustre Colegio de Abogados de Las Palmas.
DIP 79/2026 and DIP 80/2026 are distinct preliminary professional-control tracks with different objects and persons concerned. They must not be folded into 193/2026 or treated as one chain with ICAM.
Canary Islands · Tenerife
Santa Cruz de Tenerife territorial Bar.
Two separate questions: (1) earlier reference 2647-ICATF, arising from a prior consultation/channel; and (2) ICAM's 1 July order sending a copy of 1487/26 to Tenerife. No territorial file number has yet been located proving receipt of that referral.
Canary Islands · autonomous level
Autonomous public-law body distinct from ICALPA and ICATF.
It is the relevant regional level for coordination, autonomous competence and appeals where applicable. A direct registry response is now documented under RE-000329. The registry entry establishes receipt only and does not establish a merits decision.
Spain · national level
Consejo General de la Abogacía Española.
Response RS-001022/2026 stated that CGAE does not hear ordinary lawyer complaints at first instance. That response does not by itself decide the route for inter-Bar or systemic questions.
Locked rule: CCACM is Madrid. ICATF is Tenerife. ICALPA is Las Palmas. The Canary Council is the Canary autonomous level and CGAE the national level. Neither automatically substitutes for the competent first-instance body.
Lanzarote routing update: on 24-Sep-2026 ICALAN confirmed that the prior contact route was being retired and identified its current communications route. The coordination chain was re-forwarded on 25-Sep as a routing-confirmation transmission. Receipt, any local reference and merits handling remain to be confirmed.
Proved inter-Bar bridge: ICAM 1487/26 ordered a territorial referral to Tenerife. Execution, receipt and the local reference remain to be certified. Open the coordination and professional-perimeter record →
| Date | Body | Reference | Proved act | Bounded status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 27 Jan 2026 | CGAE | RS-001022/2026 | Formal response: ordinary complaints against lawyers are not heard by CGAE at first instance. | Defines first-instance boundary; does not decide the inter-Bar/systemic question. |
| 6 Mar 2026 | ICAM | 434/26 · RS-003493/26 | Archive on limitation. | No merits decision. |
| 6 Mar 2026 | ICAM portal | 493/26 | Registration of the appeal against 434/26. | Technical-intake precedent. |
| 4 Jun 2026 | CCACM | 193/2026 | Opening order and service. | Appeal formally open. |
| 1 Jul 2026 | ICAM | 1487/26 · RS-009656/26 | Archive + ordered referral to Tenerife. | Mixed treatment; no ETJ merits finding. |
| 6 Jul 2026 | ICAM | RE-007622/26 · 1566/26 | Second appeal filed; new portal number generated. | CCACM forwarding still to be certified. |
| 20–21 Aug 2026 | ICALPA | DIP 79/2026 · DIP 80/2026 | Further submissions registered. | No later merits decision located. |
| 21 Aug 2026 | ICATF | 2647-ICATF cited | Specific preservation/certification communication concerning Cristo and historical traceability. | Separate from ICAM's 1487 referral. |
| 25 Aug 2026 · 11:57:23 UTC | CCACM | 193/2026 | “RECIBIDO” to the later-facts supplement. | Receipt only. |
| 25 Aug 2026 · 11:57:27 UTC | CCACM | 193/2026 | Separate “RECIBIDO” to the two graphic annexes. | Receipt only. |
CCACM confirmed receipt of the thread “Exp. 193/2026 — hechos posteriores relevantes para la correcta delimitación temporal y deontológica de CUATRECASAS”. The supplement distinguished historic facts from new 2024–2026 professional acts and asked that multiple proceedings not cause the professional-conduct object to disappear through fragmentation.
CCACM separately confirmed the transmission of the two visualisations: San Telmo / RICPE / Sun Park and the PwC 2016 professional-knowledge checkpoint. The transmitting email itself limited them to visual source/chronology indexes, not association-based proof.
Combined evidential effect: both transmissions reached CCACM's Secretariat. This does not prove formal incorporation of each item, favourable evaluation or any merits resolution.
Has the second appeal against 1487/26 been received and docketed? Under what reference?
What outgoing/forwarding record corresponds to RE-007622/26 / 1566/26 and to the territorial transfer of 1487/26?
Was the 1487/26 copy ordered on 1 July received? Under what local number?
What was the substantive content of the “Respuesta - Fase realizada” status notified in February?