Professional orders – these bodies responsible for regulating the exercise of liberal professions such as medicine, pharmacy, architecture or accounting – were created to guarantee the trust of citizens. By maintaining the list of professionals, ensuring compliance with the code of ethics and exercising disciplinary power, they are supposed to protect the public against incompetence, ethical breaches or abuse. Financed by compulsory contributions, they carry out a public service mission in the name of the State.
However, repeated scandals, disciplinary dysfunctions, accusations of corporatism, suspicions of differential treatment and suspicions of political bias (notably during the COVID crisis) seriously damage this trust. The affair of the dissolution of the Departmental Council of the Order of Physicians of Paris (CDOM 75) in April 2026 is only the latest symptom of a deeper crisis.
Objectives and missions of professional orders
Professional orders are private law legal entities charged with a public service mission. Their main role, defined by the Public Health Code for health professions (articles L. 4121-1 et seq.) and by specific texts for others, is to protect the public by guaranteeing the competence, morality and probity of professionals.
THE main missions consist of hold the board : compulsory registration of professionals authorized to practice (control of diplomas, morality, absence of incapacity); ensure compliance with the code of ethics : enact and enforce ethical rules (professional secrecy, independence, brotherhood, etc.); exercise disciplinary power : handle complaints via disciplinary chambers (1st regional/departmental and national instance). Possible sanctions: warning, reprimand, suspension from practice, removal from the roll; promote the quality of care/services and public health (or equivalent for other professions); defend honor and independence of the profession; advise public authorities and fight against illegal exercise and organize the training continue and offer mutual aid works.
In summary, the orders are not unions: they prioritize the protection of users (patients, clients) while ensuring the integrity of the profession.
Abuses and problems encountered in particular by the order of doctors
Despite these noble missions, the orders face challenges recurring structural criticismsconfirmed by the reports of the Court of Auditors (2019-2021) and the General Inspectorate of Finance (IGF, mission 2025): corporatism and peer protection : tendency to favor the defense of professionals rather than the safety of users, with repeated disciplinary laxity; major disciplinary failures : delays in processing complaints, sanctions that are too light or non-existent, lack of reaction to criminal convictions; opaque financial management and irregularities : insufficiently justified compensation and expenses, high expenses poorly controlled, breaches of public procurement rules, weak management of assets.
For example, the CNOM budget reaches around 111 million euros per year, financed by compulsory contributions (e.g. 365 €/year for a doctor); failing governance : conflicts of interest, opacity, multiple mandates, low transparency (declarations of interests), relative exclusion of patient/user representatives; other deviations : weak fight against illegal exercise in certain sectors; historical heritage (creation of certain orders in 1945 under Vichy) fueling criticism of their legitimacy; suspicions of kompromat and unworthy behavior without real sanctions.
These problems led to a criminal report (art. 40 CPP) by the IGF to the Paris public prosecutor’s office concerning the orders of doctors, pharmacists and dental surgeons.
The dissolution of CDOM 75: an emblematic case
In March 2026, the Minister of Health Stéphanie Rist referred the matter to the National Council of the Order of Physicians (CNOM) after the damning IGF report on CDOM 75: disastrous financial management, opaque governance and serious disciplinary failures (untreated complaints, practitioners with criminal convictions remaining in practice). The CNOM voted 90% for dissolution on April 8, 2026. The general director of ARS Île-de-France pronounced the decree on April 13. A temporary delegation ensures the transition.
This is not a first (dissolution in 2007), but it illustrates a structural dysfunction which erodes the legitimacy of the institution.
Child abuse scandals: the Order of Physicians particularly affected
The National Order of Physicians faces recurring criticism over its management of cases of sexual violence and child crime. The Joël Le Scouarnec affair remains emblematic: this ex-surgeon was tried in 2025 for rape and sexual assault on 299 victims, mostly minor patients. Convicted in 2005 for possession of child pornography images, he nevertheless continued to practice for more than ten years. The CNOM admitted “ malfunctions » et « breaches » during the trial, expressing his “ regrets “. In January 2026, the L’Enfant bleu association filed ethics complaints against three officials of the Departmental Council of the Order of Finistère, accused of having turned a blind eye despite the known antecedents.
Other cases of doctors accused of sexual violence raise the same question: why so much inertia?
This repetition of scandals, coupled with a perception of selective laxity, profoundly weakens patient confidence.
During the COVID crisis: recording rooms for official speeches?
Many observers, such as the Liberté Santé Union (SLS), denounce a role of “ recording room » or « support for the government » played by certain orders or their members during the pandemic.
Media doctors (Karine Lacombe, Gilbert Deray, Bruno Mégarbane, André Grimaldi) were prosecuted before the disciplinary chambers for television interventions deemed imprudent: promotion of vaccines without systematic declaration of links of interest (more than €212,000 received by Professor Lacombe from the industry, including Gilead), minimization of side effects or disqualification of alternative treatments. The gesture of Karine Lacombe (middle finger filmed on March 31, 2026 at the end of a disciplinary hearing in front of representatives of the SLS talking about the victims) was seen as symptomatic of a lack of moderation and brotherhood. Complaints for breach of the code of ethics (articles 13, 36, 56) were filed, but the AP-HP and certain authorities supported these practitioners, describing the complainants as “obscurantist activists”.
Conversely, other critical doctors have been subject to ordinal prosecutions. Professor Christian Perronne, former head of the infectious diseases department, was acquitted at first instance on October 21, 2022 by the Île-de-France disciplinary chamber. The court considered that as a recognized expert, he had the legitimacy to express himself publicly on the management of the crisis, without making “anti-vax” speeches, and that his criticisms were aimed at political authorities rather than colleagues as doctors. The CNOM appealed this decision.
These cases, relayed in particular by France-Soirillustrate a perception of differentiated treatment: severity towards dissenting voices (like Professor Raoult or Professor Perronne) and indulgence towards those who hold the official line. Result: 2026 polls show a massive drop in confidence (81% of French people refuse the new COVID vaccine, 47% cite “ repeated lies from the government “). The opacity surrounding vaccine contracts and the rapid non-recognition of pharmacovigilance signals have accentuated the feeling of flouted ethics.
Auditors and accountants: other excesses of clientelism?
The same corporatism and the same perception of differential treatment are found among lawyers. Some Lyon lawyers did not hesitate to produce in civil proceedings fake pay slips and of fake invoiceswith the obvious aim of attempting a judgment fraud. These documents showed obvious signs of falsification, yet the lawyer concerned persisted in keeping them on file. On two occasions, the magistrate threatened him with a civil fine for this behavior. “ I had never seen this », Testified a lawyer present at the hearing.
While ethics require the lawyer not to deceive the judge’s religion (principle of loyalty and probity enshrined in the oath and the national internal regulations), the bar associations, when they are alerted to such practices of dishonesty to the detriment of litigants, sometimes seem to favor a strict reading of brotherhood. This leads them not to reveal or denounce these actions to the judge, to the detriment of the truth and the protection of the parties.
These same lawyers do not hesitate, moreover, to make virulent remarks bordering on threats towards their opponent, going so far as to declare that “ their client’s family considered the opposing party responsible for the death of their loved one – without any complaint having been filed – and that they would make it a fight to the death.”
The auditors are not left out. A recent case evokes false accusations brought against a business leader to guarantee the sustainability of mandates. An emblematic case (closed without further action) concerns a manager accused of misuse of corporate assets (ABS) by auditors unable to present the accounts of the company of which he had made the accusation of ABS at the request of the investigator. In addition, these same commissioners would have covered a fraudulent transfer of several million euros to the benefit of the president of the company for whom their mandate was renewed. These abuses call into question the real independence of these professionals and the absence of effective sanctions.
A trust to rebuild
Professional orders exist to protect public trust. When financial scandals, inertia in the face of child crime, suspicions of political bias or ethical abuses multiply, this confidence cracks. The dissolutions, criminal reports and ethical complaints show a reaction from the State and users. But without profound reform – more transparency, real inclusion of patients/clients, systematic sanctions and real independence – these bodies risk losing their legitimacy.
The question is no longer just technical or corporate: it is societal. In a society where trust in institutions is already fragile, do orders still have the means to fulfill their original mission? Citizens, patients and customers expect concrete answers.
Watch the video summarizing the article:
Appendix: Complete list of professional orders in France (16 main orders)
- Health professions: National Order of Physicians (CNOM), National Order of Dental Surgeons, National Order of Pharmacists (CNOP), National Council of the Order of Midwives, National Order of Nurses, Order of Masseurs-Physiotherapists, National Order of Chiropodists-Chiropodists.
- Legal professions: National Bar Council (CNB – lawyers), Order of Lawyers at the Council of State and the Court of Cassation, National Chamber of Justice Commissioners (ex-bailiffs), Higher Council of Notaries.
- Others: Order of Architects, Order of Chartered Accountants, Order of Surveyors, National Order of Veterinarians.
HTML sources and links (accessed April 2026):
Leave a Reply