Iran Judiciary Bar Exam common mistakes
Iran Judiciary Bar Exam · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Answering a civil-law question by immediately applying the statutory article number without first classifying the legal relationship (ownership vs. obligation, movable vs. immovable, principal vs. accessory), so the wrong article is cited even when the conclusion is right.
Candidates memorise article numbers under time pressure and pattern-match on keywords in the prompt rather than on the legal nature of the transaction, which is what the Iranian Civil Code actually keys on.
What to do instead
Before writing any answer, spend 20 seconds writing a one-line classification of the relationship and the governing book of the Civil Code (property, obligations, contracts, etc.); then select the article that matches that classification, and state the classification explicitly in the first sentence of the answer.
Treating procedural time limits, jurisdictional rules, and the difference between 'writ' and 'judgment' as background facts, then arguing the substantive merits of a civil-procedure scenario without addressing whether the claim was filed in time and before the competent court.
The substantive-law instinct dominates; candidates see a dispute about a debt or a contract and argue the debt, forgetting that procedural defects are decided first and can end the case regardless of merits.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed checklist for every civil-procedure fact pattern: (1) competence of the court (subject-matter and territorial), (2) timeliness of the filing, (3) capacity and standing of the parties, (4) formal validity of the document, and only then (5) merits. Answer in that order and label each step.
Conflating the elements of intentional crimes with those of quasi-intentional and strict-liability offences, so that a scenario about a fatal traffic accident is analysed as if intent (qasd) had to be proven, or a deliberate assault is analysed as if mere causation sufficed.
Iranian criminal law distinguishes qatl-e amd, qatl-e shabih-e amd, and qatl-e khatayi with different mens rea and different consequences (qisas vs. diya), but candidates learn the three categories as a list and do not run the elements separately.
What to do instead
For every criminal-law scenario, write the three elements (actus reus, mens rea, causation) as separate headings and, under mens rea, explicitly state which of the three categories the facts support and why the other two are excluded, citing the relevant article for each.
Answering a criminal-procedure question about arrest, detention, or search by citing the substantive Criminal Code instead of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and ignoring the procedural safeguards (judicial order, time limits, notification of family, right to counsel).
Both codes are studied together and share vocabulary (bazdasht, tafahosh, haq-e defa), so candidates reach for whichever code they remember last rather than the one that governs the act in question.
What to do instead
Keep a one-page map of which code governs which act: substantive Code for definitions and penalties, Procedure Code for powers of police, prosecutor, and investigating judge, and for safeguards. In every answer, name the code and the article before stating the rule.
Applying civil-law partnership and ownership rules to a commercial dispute without first asking whether the entity is a commercial company (sherkat-e tejarati) under the Commercial Code and, if so, which type, so that limited-liability and joint-stock rules on partner liability are missed.
The Civil Code's partnership articles are taught first and are more familiar; candidates default to them and overlook that the Commercial Code is lex specialis for registered commercial companies.
What to do instead
For any business-entity scenario, first identify the company type and whether it was registered; then state the rule that the Commercial Code prevails over the Civil Code for that entity, and analyse partner/manager liability under the specific company type's articles.
Answering a family-law question on divorce, custody, or dowry (mehrieh) by reciting the general rule without distinguishing between the wife's right to divorce (khul', talaq by delegation) and the husband's unilateral repudiation, and without addressing the financial consequences (nafaqah, 'udhr, mut'ah) separately from custody.
Family-law questions bundle several issues, and candidates write a single narrative answer that blurs the distinct legal institutions and their separate conditions and financial effects.
What to do instead
Split the answer into numbered sub-issues (dissolution route, financial entitlements, custody and visitation, child support), and for each state the governing article and the conditions; never merge the financial analysis with the custody analysis.
Describing the constitutional structure of the Islamic Republic in general terms (separation of powers, sovereignty of the people) without grounding the answer in the specific articles of the Constitution and the supervisory role of the Guardian Council and the Expediency Council.
Candidates import general comparative-constitutional vocabulary from study summaries and do not anchor claims in the Iranian constitutional text, which has its own institutional design and hierarchy of norms.
What to do instead
For every constitutional answer, cite at least one article of the Constitution for each proposition, and explicitly identify which body has competence (Guardian Council for conformity of legislation, Expediency Council for deadlock) rather than using generic separation-of-powers language.
Treating administrative acts as if they were ordinary civil acts, so that the candidate analyses the validity of a licence, permit, or disciplinary decision under contract law rather than under the administrative-law requirements (competence of the issuing authority, proper procedure, stated reasons, and the possibility of administrative or judicial review).
Administrative law is less drilled than civil law, and the vocabulary of 'validity' and 'nullity' overlaps, so candidates apply the familiar civil framework.
What to do instead
Use a fixed administrative-law test for every act: (1) was the issuing authority competent, (2) was the prescribed procedure followed, (3) were reasons given, (4) is the act reviewable and before which body. State the test and apply it element by element.
Citing a hadith or a juristic opinion as if it settled the legal rule, without identifying the school of jurisprudence, the principle of jurisprudence (usul) relied on, and how the rule was received into statute.
The Feqh component rewards source-based reasoning, but candidates either over-rely on memorised maxims or under-rely on statute, failing to connect the juristic principle to the codified article.
What to do instead
For each Feqh-based answer, name the principle or maxim, state its scope and any exception, then show the statutory article that codified it and apply both to the facts; if the schools differ, say so and state which the statute follows.
Ignoring conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and the duty of candour to the court when answering ethics scenarios, and instead answering purely on the client's tactical advantage ('what best serves the client').
Candidates trained in advocacy instinct read ethics questions as strategy questions and forget that the professional-responsibility rules impose duties owed to the court and to the profession that override client advantage.
What to do instead
Answer every ethics scenario in three steps: (1) identify the specific duty engaged (confidentiality, conflict of interest, candour, competence), (2) state the rule and its rationale, (3) state the permitted course of action including withdrawal or disclosure where required, and explicitly say when client advantage must yield.