Ijtihād (independent legal reasoning) as one of the fundamental principles for deducing Islamic legal rulings has historically been predominantly practiced individually. However, with the proliferation of novel issues and social and legal complexities in the modern era, the necessity of employing collective and consultative methods in this process has garnered increasing attention. Collective Ijtihād, meaning the participation of a group of jurists and scholars in the process of legal deduction, can enhance the precision and comprehensiveness of opinions, reduce one-sided perspectives and individual errors, and function more effectively in addressing contemporary issues. This research, with a comparative approach, examines the perspectives of the Sunni and Imami (Shi'a) schools regarding the authority and status of collective Ijtihād. The Sunnis, by establishing institutions such as fiqh academies, have practically recognized collective Ijtihād and consider it a tool for confronting modern challenges. In contrast, although Imami jurisprudence is fundamentally based on individual Ijtihād, its foundational principles and juristic bases provide the potential for accepting collective Ijtihād as well.The results of the study indicate that collective Ijtihād has the potential to become a valid model for legal deduction in both schools. The difference lies in the fact that the Sunnis have employed it in an institutionalized and organized manner, whereas in Imami jurisprudence, such an institution or organization has not been utilized, and the concept remains largely at the level of theoretical discourse and intellectual potential. Ultimately, strengthening collective Ijtihād can pave the way for scientific and practical convergence among Islamic schools of thought and provide more effective responses to the needs of the contemporary world.