Legal represention: mission or business? (Criticism on the unanimous decision number 607 of the Supreme Court)

. AbstractUnanimous decision No. 607 of the General Board of the Supreme Court, in terms of the way of looking at the nature the profession of lawyer, is the place of thought. Begman's advocacy is considered a job and like other professions, a lawyer receives a salary for providing his services to the client, but being a lawyer's job or receiving a salary is not related to being a business profession. Because in commercial jobs, the main goal is to get more profit and speculation, and the principles governing the market and economy are current in it, but in professions such as litigation (advocacy), litigation, teaching, medicine, etc., the main goal is not to earn profit and speculation. For example, if we consider the proceedings as business affairs, the judge should think only about his own profit and involve his profit in the proceedings, which is not the case. The same meaning exists in litigation, and the lawyer defends the client's legal rights in court, and receiving a salary is secondary to the main goal. For this reason, advocacy is mentioned in the second chapter of the Constitution and in the section on the rights of the nation, and the petitioner has not mentioned advocacy in Article 2 of the Trade Law in the position of enumerating commercial jobs. In the Law on Trade Union Affairs and the Law on Municipalities, lawyering is not included among commercial jobs. Therefore, the law office is not a place of business and is not subject to the regulations of commercial places, including the right of business and trade and the law of 1356, placing the profession of lawyer in the Facilitation Law is inconsistent with the nature of this profession and will be harmful to the judicial system of the country.