The trainee representative mandate has been in place for a long time. However, as it is simply a corporate mandate, it is viewed differently in this context. This is further complicated by the question of a professional representative acting as a guardian ad litem, as well as the question of granting authorisation for a trainee for representation or even a substitution in litigation court proceedings for another professional representative, such as an advocate or attorney-at-law. The wide range of aspects associated with the trainee’s practice, linked to the trainee’s legal training as an advocate or attorney-at-law, means that the trainee must be considered as a quasi-functional person in the justice system as a whole. There is a lack of agreement in the literature and among legal professionals on all the issues involved, such as the procedural arrangements in which the trainee may act in place of their professional principal. The legal regulation should be unambiguous in this regard and not open to individual judicial interpretation. Therefore, any significant problems or procedural dilemmas that may arise for a “front-line” advocate or attorney-at-law, as well as a trainee, concerning, inter alia, the aforementioned issues, may only be considered a secondary issue for non-practitioners, and requires a clear, normative resolution, not made through judicial interpretation or jurisprudential doctrine, but rather through a universally applicable legal norm.