In the story of the issuance of a license to practice law for Saeed Mortazavi

Abdollah Abdi - Abdi Media

The story is as follows: The Yazd Bar Association, following the request for the issuance of a lawyer’s license by Saeed Mortazavi, issued and delivered his license after inquiring from the relevant supervisory bodies and confirming the stipulated conditions.

After the issuance of the license, statements were released by legal experts and media representatives, and a protest campaign was formed to revoke Mortazavi’s lawyer license.

On February 6, the Yazd Bar Association, in response to the objections of opponents of this decision, sent a letter to the Supreme Judicial Disciplinary Court, presenting the views of both opponents and supporters, requesting the court’s intervention regarding the issuance of a lawyer’s license for Mortazavi under the pretext of judicial oversight.

Now, the Supreme Court will have three approaches in response to this matter:

First Approach: With a dissenting opinion, it may state that the matter does not concern this institution, and the Supreme Court will only intervene in the absence of the conditions for obtaining a lawyer’s license and upon the objection of an interested party.

Second Approach: To uphold the decision of the Yazd Bar Association’s board in issuing the lawyer’s license. In this case, the Yazd Bar Association would have improperly allowed the Supreme Court to intervene in a matter that it had no relation to, which would set a dangerous precedent in violating the independence of the bar.

Third Approach: For the Supreme Court to deem the board’s decision in issuing the lawyer’s license as contrary to its judgment and to annul the issued license.

In this case, considering that the conditions and background of Mortazavi, which are opposed by the public and legal experts, relate to before the issuance of the license, it indicates that Mortazavi lacked the legal conditions at the time of applying for the lawyer’s license, and the board issued the license without considering them.

Therefore, it is now necessary to seek the punishment of the Yazd Bar Association’s board with a suspension from practicing law (2 to 5 years) under Article 5 of the Law on the Quality of Obtaining a Lawyer’s License.

This means going down the well with Mortazavi’s rotten rope.

I wish the Bar Association had refrained from issuing the lawyer’s license based on the opponents’ reasoning, as mentioned in the letter to the Supreme Judicial Disciplinary Court, due to Mortazavi’s bad reputation (as per Clause 5 of Article 10 of the Law on the Independence of the Bar Association). This time, Mortazavi should have submitted his complaint and objection to the Supreme Judicial Disciplinary Court using the established legal capacities.