Shabtabnews In this dark night, I have lost my way – Arise from a corner, oh you the star of guidance.
Iranwire – The legal profession, as a cornerstone of justice, relies on the independence of lawyers and bar associations to uphold the rule of law and safeguard the rights of individuals. A truly independent Bar Association not only regulates the legal profession but also acts as a buffer between lawyers and the state, ensuring that attorneys can practice without fear of undue influence, persecution, or reprisal. In Iran, however, recent developments have raised serious concerns about whether the Iranian Bar Association still functions as an autonomous body, or whether it has become a subsidiary of the judiciary, complicit in its actions.
The issuance of a law license to Saeed Mortazavi, the former Tehran Prosecutor General, has ignited controversy and raised fundamental questions about the credibility of Iran’s legal profession. Mortazavi’s tenure in the judiciary was marked by numerous allegations of misconduct, leading to his eventual removal from judicial office. His involvement in high-profile legal cases and treatment of detainees has been the subject of extensive scrutiny, both domestically and internationally. The decision to allow him to practice law raises a critical issue: if an individual previously disqualified from judicial office can be reintegrated into the legal profession, what standards govern admission to the Bar?
At the same time, lawyers who have advocated for due process, fair trials, and human rights continue to face disbarment, imprisonment, or exile. The Iranian Bar Association has remained notably silent on the prosecution and harassment of numerous defence attorneys, creating a legal environment where professional independence is neither protected nor valued. The contradiction between the swift acceptance of Mortazavi’s application and the punitive measures taken against lawyers advocating for fair trials illustrates a fundamental disparity in the enforcement of legal standards.
A legal profession that does not apply its own standards consistently risks becoming an instrument of selective justice, where access to legal practice is determined by political affiliations rather than professional merit. This is not simply an issue of individual cases—it signals a structural problem within Iran’s legal system, where the line between the judiciary and the legal profession is increasingly blurred. The Bar Association, rather than acting as an independent regulatory body, appears to have acquiesced to the judiciary’s influence, undermining public confidence in legal institutions.
This crisis is not merely an internal matter of regulatory discretion. The credibility of any country’s legal profession is assessed not only by its domestic stakeholders but also by the international legal community. A Bar Association that fails to protect its own members, disregards principles of due process, and permits individuals previously sanctioned within the judiciary to practice law without scrutiny, risks eroding its own legitimacy.
A key concern arising from this development is the message it sends to legal professionals across Iran. The lack of protection for lawyers facing prosecution has led to a climate of self-censorship, where attorneys may avoid sensitive cases to protect themselves from reprisal. If the practice of law is conditioned on avoiding conflict with state authorities, then legal advocacy in Iran is no longer grounded in principles of justice but in considerations of political risk.
Furthermore, the impact of these developments is not limited to Iranian lawyers. Legal professionals worldwide—particularly those working on international legal cooperation, human rights law, and asylum cases involving Iranian litigants—must consider the implications of these trends on legal integrity and professional independence. If a legal system does not guarantee the unbiased application of professional regulations, then the validity of legal decisions made within that jurisdiction may be called into question in foreign courts and international tribunals.
It is essential for international legal bodies, including the International Bar Association, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, and legal oversight committees within the United Nations and the European Union, to take note of these developments. Legal independence is not an abstract principle; it is a fundamental requirement for the integrity of judicial systems and the rule of law. If systemic issues within Iran’s legal profession continue without scrutiny, they may establish a precedent that extends beyond Iran, affecting regional legal frameworks and international legal cooperation.
The responsibility of any Bar Association is to ensure that access to legal practice is based on objective, transparent, and enforceable criteria. If admissions, disciplinary measures, and professional protections are not applied consistently, then the credibility of the legal profession itself is at stake.
The Iranian Bar Association now faces a defining moment: will it uphold its duty to protect legal professionals, or will it continue to function as an extension of the judiciary, applying selective standards that undermine trust in legal institutions? The answer to this question will not only shape the future of the legal profession in Iran but will also determine the extent to which Iran’s legal system can be viewed as a credible and autonomous entity on the global stage.
Mohammad Hedayati-Kakhki is a visiting professor at Durham Law School
