An applicant confuses three kinds of evidence

An applicant brings a recognized foreign law degree, an old qualification result and a client mandate to a federal licensing consultation. The applicant argues that the mandate alone allows immediate paid advocacy and that educational equivalence makes all experience conditions irrelevant. The file does not yet establish the relevant Ethiopian legal-work period or the date the examination result was presented. No current examination session, grade or fee is supplied. The reviewer must distinguish the evidence and identify the appropriate route under the published Proclamation rather than invent a present-day administrative decision. The case also requires checking the actual competent authority and any applicable implementing instrument before advising on a real application.