In cases of diagnostic or therapeutic uncertainty, a physician is required to seek the opinion of an appropriate specialist or convene a medical council. Nevertheless, in daily clinical practice, situations may arise where such opinions are provided by physicians still undergoing specialization training. This article addresses the legal issues surrounding the issuance of medical opinions by such physicians. A formal-dogmatic methodology was employed, resulting in a proposed interpretation of the regulations governing the solicitation, issuance, and accountability for medical opinions in situations of diagnostic or therapeutic uncertainty. According to this interpretation, specialist consultations should generally be performed by a fully qualified specialist. However, exceptions exist whereby a physician in training may provide an opinion. In such cases, the physician must obtain a written positive evaluation from their specialization supervisor or training director, confirming their competency. The attending physician overseeing the treatment retains ultimate responsibility and must exercise heightened scrutiny when relying on consultations provided by non-specialist physicians. It is imperative that the documentation of the consultation explicitly notes that the opinion was rendered by a physician still in training, and the patient must be clearly informed of this fact. Furthermore, assigning tasks to a physician who lacks the requisite skills or qualifications may constitute an organizational error, potentially leading to liability, including criminal liability, for the entity’s manager or the head of the relevant organizational unit.