تخصصی‌سازی حرفۀ وکالت دادگستری در ایران؛ ‏چالش‌ها و راهکارها

Abstract
Advocacy as a public service must be provided to citizens in accordance with the latest social developments. A variety of legal issues and laws necessitate the provision of specialized legal services. In Iran, no appropriate measures have been taken to respond to this necessity. The specialization of advocacy should identify the challenges and provide appropriate solutions. This article seeks to answer these questions: What are the challenges facing the specialization of advocacy in Iran? What are the solutions to solve them?
Nowadays, due to the wide range of issues and the complexity of social relations, it is inevitable to change the system of general advocacy to a system of specialized advocacy. It no longer seems realistic to expect all lawyers to have full control over the rules and details of laws and regulations on all matters. Although the legal profession is one of the first professions for which special legal regulations have been adopted in Iran (since 1314), the legal system governing this profession has not been sufficiently developed yet.
Of course, the specialization of the legal profession is not just a trade union category, but its consequences affect clients and society in general. The representation of the judiciary as a public service makes the government and the relevant trade unions responsible for ensuring the necessary conditions for the proper provision of this service to members of society. An important issue, however, is the design of the model and system in accordance with the current situation in the country. This is done against the rule based on the experiences of other countries and taking into account its internal capacities and limitations. In general, for countries such as Iran, which are at the beginning of the implementation of the above-mentioned dea, adopting a step-by-step approach to provide the conditions for the implementation of the above plan over time and evaluate the effects and operational consequences of that idea can reduce to a considerable extent the existing challenges. In any case, at the beginning of the implementation of this idea, the specialized areas of advocacy will inevitably be general (such as lawsuits, criminal proceedings). However, in continuation and with the institutionalization of this idea, the mentioned areas can be made more detailed. Undoubtedly, in determining the details of this matter, the number of lawsuits filed in the judiciary, the higher educational system of law in the country's universities, and the graduate degrees of lawyers and the needs of the region should be considered as relevant considerations.
Based on the model proposed in this paper, the process of issuing a general power of attorney license will continue as before by the Bar Association and the Bar Association of the Judiciary. However, lawyers who are eligible to obtain a specialized attorney's license (conditions such as the expiration of a certain period of time after the issuance of a general attorney's license, success in written and oral exams related to the scientific qualification of candidates and no effective disciplinary conviction within a certain period). They will receive a specialized power of attorney from the date of application for a power of attorney. In the short term, other attorneys can also practice law in specialized areas. However, when the number of licensed lawyers in each of the jurisdictions reaches a pre-determined quorum, it will not be possible for other lawyers to practice law in those areas.
The most important challenges in the field of specialization of legal representation in Iran include the lack of explicit recognition of the specialization of the legal profession in the current Iranian legal system, the restriction of citizens' access to legal services, the possibility of monopolizing legal services (and consequently the decline in the quality of these services and the increase in lawyers' fees), differences in determining the terms and conditions related to the appointment and certification of lawyers, and resistance to change in the current situation.
As mentioned, the adoption of the solutions proposed in this paper does not necessarily lead to the complete elimination of these challenges. It is obvious that disrupting the established order and making important and fundamental changes will, in practice,  entail problems and consequences, some of which are inevitable. The main art, however, will be the managing of these issues with the aim of achieving the above idea with the least costs and negative consequences. In view of the studies conducted, it seems that if the possibility of specializing in the legal profession is identified in the relevant laws, the authority of the bar association in implementing the specialization plan based on the relevant criteria, identifying the possibility of judicial objection, determining specialized areas in accordance with the existing capacities, designing a model appropriate to the situation in Iran with the approach of maximal elimination of the challenges, specialization of postgraduate courses in the field of law, forecasting and implementation of specialized training courses by relevant trade unions and forecasting appropriate disciplinary regulations can, to a considerable extent, pave the way for the efficient and effective implementation of the aforementioned idea.
Considering the existence of two lawyers' unions in Iran (Bar Association, and the Bar Association of lawyers, official experts and family counselors of the judiciary), the implementation of the legal professionalism plan should be designed and implemented in a joint program by these entities. Finally, considering the preparation of a comprehensive bill on advocacy and legal advice, it seems that the most appropriate means to anticipate the provisions needed for the proper implementation of the idea is the provisions of the mentioned bill.