Legal studies (Law)

 In addition the training of a solicitor is different to a barrister, as it is necessary that a Legal Practice Course (LPC) is taken and the work within the LPC becomes beneficial once the individual has completed his/her training contract. A solicitor’s role is to give out special legal advice and help their clients within their given situation. Solicitors work is normally based upon lower advocacy court work and litigation but one must point out that a higher rights of audience may be applied for under the AJA 1999, where a Legal Services Consultative Panel (LSCP) can be applied; this is stated in S18 A (3) in AJA 1999 “The Consultative Panel shall have—

(a) the duty of assisting in the maintenance and development of standards in the

education, training and conduct of persons offering legal services by considering

relevant issues in accordance with a programme of work approved by the Lord

Chancellor and, where the Consultative Panel considers it appropriate to do so,

making recommendations to him” this clearly shows that it is available to Solicitors to have a wider rights of audience and solicitors have the option to have higher rights of audience if applied correctly.  

When discussing the issue of fusion amongst the two legal professions, it is vital that the concept must be considered. Fusion is the bringing of both professions into one, enabling the two tier system between solicitors and barristers to be eradicated. This concept of fusion would enforce a join of two professions into one to enable only one common training programme to equally qualify solicitors and barristers. The term “Lawyer” can be seen as a term in which is frequently used to define what a two tier system is currently. By fusing the two separate areas on the legal system a more concise definition of the term lawyer will be ordained, due to clients enjoying a greater confinement with their lawyer, a privilege that cannot currently be enjoyed, as one cannot gain direct access to a barrister. In addition the concept of fusion would mean that solicitors wouldn’t have to apply for higher rights of audience.

This was defined in CLSA 1990 28 (2) where it states;

“(2) A person shall have a right to conduct litigation in relation to any proceedings only in the

following cases—

(a) where—

(i) he has a right to conduct litigation in relation to those proceedings granted by

the appropriate authorised body” The advantage of fusion would allow the public to access solicitors more easily, and would benefit the public dramatically, as it would enable clients to take their cases to higher courts within UK and fusion would enable the power to the law society, which is enjoyed by Barristers, for solicitors to have rights of audience in all courts. In addition, fusion itself would give clients easier access to solicitors, due to as it currently stands that a client can’t access a Barrister directly but if both legal professions were fused it wouldn’t be necessary for the client to access a Barrister, as the Solicitor would be able to take the case to a high court if the need arises.

In addition, it must also be taken into consideration the concept of the cost, in which must be paid by the client in order for his/her case to reach the higher courts.  By fusing both legal professions it would allow a client to just appoint a “lawyer” instead of appointing both a solicitor and barrister if their case was to go further, which would allow the costs to be reduced. This can be identified in “The English Legal System” text where it states that “there is a suggestion that costs would be reduced as only one lawyer would be required rather than two”.

It must also be noted that there are disadvantages in which can be illustrated on the topic of fusion. A primary disadvantage can be that there would be a huge loss of specialist expertise. This specific point can be argued due to if a fused profession was created instead of hiring a Barrister, there may be the lack of legal specialist knowledge in that particular area of law, due to Barristers tend to only specialize in certain areas of the Law and aren’t usually specialised in all areas, in addition to this, fusion could also lead to a limitation of the standard of advocacy, this was argued in “1997- Royal Commission on Legal Services” .

Furthermore it can be argued that there is the loss of professional detachment, for example a loss of a secondary opinion of a Barrister. This demonstrated in the sense of lacking expert knowledge of a Barrister, in comparison to the knowledge of a solicitor, or a fused profession, as “it is often said that a barrister tends to be more remote than a solicitor when it comes to dealing with the lay client” and therefore a loss of knowledge may be lost if both professions fused. Furthermore with fusing both professions together; there would be a loss of the “cab rank rule” due to there would be a loss of independence among both the Bar and the Law Society.  

At an overall conclusion both arguments for and against fusion can be seen with AJA 1999 and CLSA 1990, due to both of these Acts enforced that it is possible that Solicitors and Barristers can take a case from the starting point to the finish. However it must be said that within UK there is always going to be a divide among solicitors and barristers due to certain reasons, and there will always remain a two tier system of both the Law Society and the Bar. I personally feel fusing both professions would be successful due to the need of solicitors gaining higher rights of audience and Barristers with the specialist/expert knowledge would be dismantled into one profession. This can therefore give the lawyer an opportunity to decide what area he/she wants to focus on, and benefit the public and lawyers significantly.

Word Count: 1,369

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

• Statutes used: 1) Access to Justice Act 1999 (c22)

                         2) Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c41)

• Elliott, C. & Quinn, F. (2007). English Legal System.  (8th Edition). Dorchester: Pearson Education Ltd.
• Gillespie, A. (2007). The English Legal System. (Eds.). New York: Oxford University Press

 

---