By: Taha Rashed – Senior Associate
Sabrine Ben Jeddou – Legal Researcher
In recent years, the legal profession in the State of Qatar has witnessed significant legislative development, marked by important amendments to the Advocacy Law issued under Law No. 23 of 2006. His Highness Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the Amir of the State of Qatar ratified Law No. 19 of 2025, which introduced certain amendments to the Advocacy Law, and was published in Issue No. 23 of the Official Gazette for the year 2025 on September 11, 2025 (“Amending Law”). The Amending Law forms part of the State’s efforts to modernise the justice system, strengthen the independence of the legal profession, and enhance the quality of legal services. This article identifies and provides commentary on the most prominent amendments made to the Advocacy Law.
One of the most notable amendments introduced by the Amending Law relates to Article 4, reorganising and expanding the competencies of State Lawyers at the Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) to include representing public authorities and institutions alongside ministries and other governmental bodies, in accordance with regulations issued by a decision of the Council of Ministers. Prior to this amendment, public authorities and institutions were not explicitly referenced in the article—an omission remedied by the Amending Law. The amendment also stipulates that the Council of Ministers shall issue the necessary and appropriate decision regulating the work of State Lawyers in line with the provisions of the Advocacy Law amendments. With the new professional powers granted to them, the amendment further provides State Lawyers with the protections stipulated in Articles 31, 34, and 35 of the Advocacy Law, thereby ensuring a balanced professional environment that safeguards them while performing their duties.
The amendment also establishes a special register for State Lawyers, the regulations of which shall be issued by the competent Minister, thereby creating a clear professional framework without separating them from the broader legal profession. Notably, the amendment establishes the principle of legal duality in the status of State Lawyers, meaning they are subject to the Advocacy Law only to the extent necessary to perform their legal functions, while remaining administratively and functionally affiliated with their original employer—the MoJ—with respect to salaries, leave, administrative accountability, and other matters regulated under the Human Resources Law or Amiri Decision No. (3) of 2025 regarding the organisational structure of the MoJ. This dual status affords State Lawyers flexibility to effectively perform their legal roles without severing their connection to the State’s administrative system.
In addition, the Amending Law amends Article 5 of the Advocacy Law by introducing a qualification requirement for QatarEnergy employees who practice legal work falling within the scope of the legal profession as defined in Article 3 of the Advocacy Law. The amendment requires that such employees must have at least two years of prior legal experience to practice—an important development aimed at ensuring professional competence. However, the Amending Law does not obstruct those who lack the required experience; it permits them to work under the supervision of qualified individuals, subject to applicable regulations. The amendment also creates a special register for these employees and grants them the same professional protections provided in Articles 31, 34, and 35 of the Advocacy Law.
Regarding the registration of lawyers, the amendment to Article 10 revises the composition of the Lawyers’ Admission Committee (“Committee”) in a manner that reinforces the central role of the MoJ and expands its administrative powers. The amendment removes the specific designation of the Director of the Department of Lawyers’ Affairs as a Committee member and instead grants the Minister authority to appoint three staff members from the MoJ, thereby broadening the Ministry’s representation within the Committee. This reflects the intent to maintain State oversight over entry into the legal profession without compromising the principle of professional independence.
Additionally, the amendment to item 7 of Article 13 restructures the requirement to pass a personal interview and examinations as a pre-condition for registration in the roll of practising lawyers. Now, registration is at the discretion of the Lawyers’ Admission Committee, in accordance with the regulations it establishes. As such, the Committee has become a professional screening mechanism with the discretionary authority to assess applicants’ competence and personal conduct based on relevant circumstances. This amendment is meant to address situations during which exceptional circumstances develop, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, when there was an urgent need to increase the number of practising lawyers, leading to temporary exemptions from interview requirements and reliance instead on applicants’ professional experience.
Another major change appears in the amendment to Article 19, which represents one of the most significant developments in the Advocacy Law. The amendment redefines the limits governing lawyers’ engagement in other professions by easing restrictions on lawyers practising or engaging in commercial activities. While the legislator preserved the general scope of prohibition, the amendment expands exceptions by permitting lawyers to own shares in all types of capital companies—not just joint‑stock companies—as long as such ownership does not relate to the company’s daily operations. Moreover, lawyers may now serve as general partners in simple limited partnerships, provided they do not participate in management or engage personally in commercial activities. This approach balances the principles of professional independence with lawyers’ right to pursue financial growth within clear legal boundaries.
In parallel, the amendment to Article 37 modernises the rules on attorneys’ fees by allowing lawyers and clients to agree in advance on fees, including a percentage of the amount awarded in litigation, provided it does not exceed 25% of the judgment amount—an increase from the previous 10% cap. This amendment reflects a more balanced approach that takes into account the realities of the legal practice and economic conditions.
The amendment to Article 47 marks a significant shift from the traditional perception that all forms of professional advertising or the use of promotional methods violate professional ethics. The new amendment removes the absolute prohibition on advertising, allowing to introduce themselves publicly, subject to clear regulatory guidelines to be issued by the competent Committee and published on the MoJ’s official website—ensuring that such practices uphold the dignity of the profession.
As for Article 61, the amendment simplifies the provision concerning the formation of the Legal Aid Committee and cases in which a lawyer is assigned to a case. Previously, the article specified that the committee was formed “under the chairmanship of a court president and two of its judges.” The new amendment merely states that “a committee of three judges, one of whom shall be the chair, shall be formed by a decision of the President of the Court of First Instance,” reflecting a legislative preference for concise drafting. Notably, however, the amendment adopts a negative approach by removing several substantive paragraphs without replacing them with equivalent detail. Among the provisions removed were those defining the status of the lawyer assigned by the committee as the legal representative of the concerned party upon assignment, and those granting the committee authority to regulate the conditions and procedures of assignment. This deletion raises legitimate questions about the legal position of assigned lawyers after the amendment, as the law no longer explicitly defines their mandate—potentially creating a regulatory gap that may need to be addressed through secondary legislation or judicial interpretation.
In conclusion, the Amending Law introduces more than superficial amendments to certain provisions of the Advocacy Law; it constitutes a genuine milestone in the legal regulation of the legal profession in Qatar. The amendments redefine the relationship between lawyers and the State, recalibrate entry requirements into the profession, expand the scope of legal practice within public institutions, and introduce long-awaited reforms to keep pace with modern developments and strengthen the role of lawyers in supporting the justice system.
