Background and Aims: The purpose of this article is to examine the works of independent representation in jurisprudence, Iranian and English law.
Materials and Methods: This article is descriptive and analytical. Materials and data are also qualitative and data collection was used in collecting materials and data.
Ethical considerations: In this article, the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness are respected.
Findings: The findings showed that In Iranian law the mere granting of power of attorney does not invalidate the. Also, it does not eliminate the right to join, the trustee's implicitly agreed upon. So the agreement and desire of the parties has an important and decisive role in this field. In English law, Like Iran's rights it is irrevocable in the following cases: 1) if it is delegated to a lawyer along with the transfer of interests and in exchange for an exchange that has a financial value, this rule is used in cases where it is delegated to protect interests . 2) It should be specified that the power of attorney cannot be revoked.
Result: Both in Iranian jurisprudence and law and in English law If the power of attorney is concluded in the capacity of a mere power of attorney in its true sense, in this case all will be client can also perform the power of attorney himself or even include the trustee's attorney and or monitor and with this act limit the powers of the lawyer.