How far is it true to say that the work of Solicitors and Barristers has changed so much that it is no longer necessary for there to be two separate professions?

Authors Avatar

How far is it true to say that the work of Solicitors and Barristers has changed so much that it is no longer necessary for there to be two separate professions?

        The main issue in this question is the topic fusion. Fusion is the joining of the two main professions in the British Legal System, barristers and solicitors. Fusion is a highly debated subject, because many people would like to stick to tradition, whereas others see no use in having to employ two different people when they could just employ one.

        The distinction between barristers and solicitors was broken down in 1990 when the when the Courts and Legal Services Act enabled solicitors to appear as advocates in the higher courts. This move was primarily introduced to bring down the costs of legal proceedings. But solicitors were required to take a complex procedure to obtain permission to conduct such cases, so that by 1998 only 634 solicitors were qualified to do so. In June 1998, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, sought to enable more solicitor to appear in the higher courts by ending the ability of any one of the four senior judges (the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice, the Vice-Chancellor and the President of the Family Division of the High Court) to block solicitors from appearing.

        There are some advantages to fusion, like the reduction of legal service cost and having to employ only one person to represent you, should your case go to court. However there are also potential disadvantages, like a likely decline in the availability of specialists. Both the Benson Commission and Marre Committee argued for retaining the division. In those jurisdictions, for example, the USA, where there is no formal division, there still tends to be an informal distinction between office and trial lawyers. But fusion of the two professions would prevent the unnecessary repetition of work that occurs at the moment. A client goes to a solicitor who considers the problem. If the problem leads to a court case then the solicitor has to prepare a brief for a barrister. Even if the case does not lead to litigation, the solicitor may require the opinion of a barrister who is specialised in a certain area. Problems of last-minute changes in decisions by solicitors or barristers would almost completely disappear if fusion were to take place. If only one person was to be your lawyer, then there would be no problem of not having met your barrister before your court case takes place. Because students have to decide at a very early stage which route they would like to follow in the legal system, they may later find they have a talent for doing something that the other profession calls for. If fusion occurred then this problem would no longer exist. Also, a unified profession would greatly increase the scope for judicial selection. The British Legal System is the only one, which divides its legal profession into two. At the moment your solicitor chooses your barrister, should your case go to court. If fusion takes place then the choice of your lawyer rest entirely with yourself.

Join now!

        However, if fusion between the two legal professions were to occur it would mean a loss of expert and specialist skills. Also, barristers are far more easily identifiable than specialists would be in a unified profession. Another fact is, that two people doing separate things, will do their job better than just one person would. The overall standard of work would drop if fusion took place. It is essential that a defendants case is properly represented in court and if it becomes necessary for you to become a lawyer, rather than a solicitor or barrister, then you my not ...

This is a preview of the whole essay