Refused application to practise as an advocate was invalid

A trainee advocate who applied for a licence to practise as an advocate was refused by the Supervisory Council for Legal Practice, on the grounds that she had not been authorised to work for an advocate for whom she had carried out two legal assignments. This was due to a clear mistake on the part of the law firm, as this advocate had been omitted from the list of advocates in the application. The Supreme Court, like the previous instances, found that the refusal was invalid. It was pointed out that, at the outset, it is a condition under section 8-1 subsection 1 of the Regulations for Advocates that the applicant has been authorised to work for the advocate for whom the relevant assignment has been carried out. However, genuine litigation experience is the purpose of this regulatory provision. Therefore, it was reasonable to interpret it such that the applicant is entitled to a licence also in cases where he or she demonstrates sufficient procedural experience in line with the Regulations, and the principal meets all conditions for having the relevant person as his or her trainee, but the formal authorisation for this principal is missing due to an obvious omission. The litigation experience documented in the application therefore met the requirement in section 8-1 subsection 1 of the Regulations for Advocates. The State’s appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment was dismissed.

Read the whole judgment (Norwegian only)

Area of law: Advocate law

Key paragraphs: 73–74

Justices: Indreberg, Bergsjø, Arntzen, Høgetveit Berg og kst. dommar Remen