The Status of Attorneys in Iran’s Judicial System and Its Compatibility with the Foundations of Imami Jurisprudence: Legislative and Ijtihād-Based Challenges and Solutions

Abstract

The institution of legal representation is one of the most important mechanisms for realizing judicial justice and safeguarding the right to defense within Iran’s judicial system. At the foundational level, it is also closely connected with Imami jurisprudence. In addition to its professional and specialized functions, this institution has broad social and legal implications, and its effectiveness directly influences the quality of fair trial proceedings. Despite the recognition of the principle of agency in both Imami jurisprudence and Iranian positive law, certain legislative and practical ambiguities and conflicts persist concerning the status of attorneys, the scope of their authority, the licensing system, the accused’s right to defense, and the mechanisms governing the financial relationship between attorneys and clients. Accordingly, examining the compatibility of the existing regulations with jurisprudential foundations and formulating corrective solutions constitutes both a scholarly and practical necessity. This study aimed to clarify the status of attorneys in Iran’s judicial system, assess the extent to which this status conforms to the principles of Imami jurisprudence, and propose legislative and ijtihād-based solutions to address the existing challenges. The study employed a descriptive-analytical method and a library-based approach, drawing on jurisprudential sources, procedural laws and regulations, and legal doctrinal perspectives. The findings indicate substantial convergence between Imami jurisprudence and Iranian law regarding principles such as the legitimacy of the agency contract, women’s eligibility to practice law, the right to defense, and the necessity of protecting defendants and litigants. Nevertheless, several issues require reconsideration, including the Note to Article 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the duality of institutions authorized to issue licenses, the attorney-fee system, the expansion of electronic legal representation, and the need for greater specialization within the legal profession. Accordingly, reform of the current framework should be grounded in the ijtihād-based capacities of Imami jurisprudence, principles such as the prohibition of harm, public interest, and the protection of people’s rights, as well as the more precise regulation of legal mechanisms.