<![CDATA[Notarial malpractice raises concerns regarding legal certainty, proportionality of sanctions, and effective protection for parties affected by notarial misconduct. Indonesian positive law does not provide a normative definition of notary malpractice or classify violations according to their severity, resulting in broad discretion in the application of sanctions. This study aims to examine the construction of notary liability and the legal consequences of notarial malpractice under Indonesian law through comparison with Continental European notarial standards. A normative juridical method with a functional comparative legal approach is employed, focusing on the 2013 Deontology and Rules of Organization for Notariats of the Union Internationale du Notariat (UINL), supplemented by selected positive-law practices in Germany and France. The findings reveal that UINL standards establish thirty-nine deontological violations across three levels of severity and provide more proportionate sanctions and liability guarantees than the Indonesian framework. Indonesian law also lacks mandatory professional liability coverage and does not expressly regulate certain duties, including legal advice to vulnerable parties and verification of rights. The study contributes six reform proposals addressing severity classification, sanction limits, monetary fines, professional insurance, verification duties, and revision of Article 84 of the Law on the Office of Notary.]]>
