Search

The three case studies in this chapter document the retrenchment and reconstruction of access to justice over the last 30 years in the US, Scandinavia and England and Wales. 1 Although developments in each setting have been very different, two common and interlinked themes emerge, which have undermined the legal profession’s autonomy in defining and providing access to justice. First, lawyers have been displaced from their central role as providers and been forced to share the stage with other actors. Second, as states have withdrawn funding from legal aid, they have intervened more actively in determining what constitutes access to justice and who is entitled to it. Lawyers, in turn, have regrouped, responded to and resisted these developments to varying degrees. The three case studies represent points on a spectrum. The US is the furthest advanced in the fragmentation and marketisation of access to justice; the Scandinavian countries have advanced a considerable way down that route; while England and Wales stands uncomfortably on the threshold, unable to return to the past but uncertain of its future.

Since the 1979 Revolution, the clerical regime in Iran has been limiting the legal profession’s autonomy by preventing members of the Iranian Bar Association (IBA) from freely electing their Board of Directors and by establishing a new body of lawyers—legal advisors of the judiciary—to contest the IBA’s professional monopoly. Clerics have even attempted to bring the legal profession under the control of the Ministry of Justice and merge it with the legal advisors. The IBA’s struggle to remain a civil society organisation independent of the judiciary offers a vantage point from which to explore the role of the legal profession in Iranian society and the legal system of the Islamic Republic. Why does the Iranian judiciary oppose an independent legal profession, and why does the profession refuse to capitulate? What are the implications of this ongoing conflict for the legal order of the Islamic Republic, whose political elite consists mainly of Islamic jurists? What are the socio-cultural consequences of undermining the integrity and autonomy of the legal profession? These questions will guide our inquiry.After discussing the IBA’s development before and after the 1979 Revolution, we describe how practising attorneys view the IBA, advocacy, legal practice, legal services and their troubled relationship with the judiciary. They recount the obstacles they encounter within a politicised judicial order and explain how they preserve professional integrity within a legal system that lacks the public’s confidence. We conclude by arguing that the Islamic Republic’s attempt to subordinate the legal profession to administrative and ideological control by the judiciary reflects the clash of two legal cultures. Iranian judges reconstruct and apply Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) as part of their efforts to deliver substantive justice within a codified legal system, while IBA attorneys understand and seek to practise law consistent with the ideals of due process, certainty and unifor