Maleki, the former head of the Center's Lawyers' Association, in a conversation with "Emtedad":

The note of Article 48 violates the rights of the nation/ a lawyer must be trusted by the client, not the head of the judicial system/ a large number of lawyers do not cooperate with this note despite their names being listed as trusted by the head of the judiciary/ some of The courts arbitrarily extended the scope of this note to the court stage/ there was no serious will to remove this note in the judiciary and the legislature/ the voices of lawyers' associations to the note of Article 48 did not go anywhere since its approval.

Extension-Mohammed Jafari: Jalil Maliki, a university professor and the former president of the Center's Bar Association, in an interview with Extension, while criticizing the implementation of Article 48 (lawyers trusted by the head of the judiciary) and its consequences in the country's judicial system, stated: It is against all legal standards and in a way, it is a flagrant violation of Article 35 of the Constitution, which recognizes the right to freely choose a lawyer for the members of the nation.

Commentary on Article 48 violates the rights of the nation

Unfortunately, this note has created serious restrictions for people in freely choosing a lawyer and has violated their independence in freely choosing a lawyer.

On the other hand, the restrictions created in this note are a kind of interference in the affairs of independent lawyers' associations. According to the laws governing the institution of independent advocacy, any exclusion or restriction in the lawyer's legal activity must be by the order of the lawyers' disciplinary court.

This is the rule of law for the independence of the lawyer and the lawyers' association, while according to the provisions of this note, the majority of lawyers are barred from entering these cases at the court stage, and this is a kind of barring order without issuing a ruling by the disciplinary court of lawyers and violating their independence. All these cases are against the standards of fair proceedings, which recognize the right of the people to have an independent lawyer and the pillar of independent defense without restrictions.

A lawyer should be trusted by the client, not trusted by the head of the judiciary

The crowd of people who have been in the queue to get a designated lawyer and cannot choose their lawyer from among all the lawyers. People have to choose a lawyer from a limited number of these lawyers. And this is despite the fact that among these lawyers, a large number of them, despite the inclusion of their names by the judiciary as trusted lawyers of the head of the judicial system, did not cooperate with this note and consider it a stain on the country's judicial system.

Naturally, people have problems and cannot choose the lawyer they want. It should not be forgotten that the lawyer should be trusted by the client, not trusted by the head of the judiciary. A client who cannot trust his lawyer, how can he leave the matter of defense to him?

Some courts arbitrarily extended the scope of this note to the court stage

Now, a large number of the defendants, the subject of this note, could not choose their lawyer, and as a result, their right to defense was violated. In addition, some courts arbitrarily extended the scope of this note to the court stage. Due to its concept, this note can only be applied in the prosecution and investigation stage.

Unfortunately, this case is completely against the law and I wonder why the regulatory bodies have not stopped this illegal process even within the framework of this note.

The voice of protest of lawyers' associations to this note did not go anywhere since its approval

Associations of lawyers have expressed their clear opposition to this note since its approval. Protests were made repeatedly to both the judiciary and the legislature in this regard, but unfortunately, the voices of the centers did not go anywhere. When I was in charge of the center and before that, I mentioned this matter many times, but unfortunately, no attention was paid to it.

There is no serious will to remove this note in the judicial system

My conclusion is that there was no serious will to remove this note. If this existed, gentlemen would have removed it by now in the form of a judicial bill or a legal plan. But there has been no serious will so far. I hope that with the revelation of the disadvantages of the note, from now on, this will be created and, as the first deputy of the judiciary said, this stigma will be removed in action and not in words from the field of the judicial system and the criminal procedure of the country.