The issue of social security for attorneys and the oversight of professional cooperative responsibilities within the bar association, has long been a subject of consideration by Iranian legislator and authors. In this regard, the courts have confronted with such issue and have to adjudicate disputes arising therefrom. One of these cases is a lawsuit compelling the Fund for Protection of Judiciary Attorneys and Solvers (Protection Fund) to annulment of mandatory membership, or to adhere to the proviso of Article (1) of the Law on the Establishment of the Fund for Protection of Judiciary Attorneys and Solvers. Such claims are deemed unfounded and therefore dismissed as null and void due to the optional nature of attorneys’ insurance coverage or its discontinuity, and in other instances, owing to the precedence of attorneys’ membership in the Protection Fund. Even in a recent case, such a claim concerning the plaintiff’s mandatory insurance was rejected. In this article, three cases are examined, each accompanied by reference to the first-instance judgment and the ruling of the appellate court. All three cases pertain to the current decade, and in each of them, the Protection Fund emerges as the ultimate prevailing party in the dispute and subsequently, the theoretical and reasoning foundations of each case are subjected to critical analysis. This critical assessment has been conducted primarily on a case-by-case basis and may be characterized as “formalistic in nature”...