Probably one of the main differences between solicitors and barristers is that barristers must be very good ‘actors’. They must excel at presenting evidence in a convincing manner with a high level of self-confidence. Their presentation skills must be excellent if they want to be good at the job. However, a solicitor does not have to be good at drama to the extent that a barrister has to. A barrister needs to be able to present evidence dramatically to sway the opinion of the judge or jury.
A solicitor’s work is much more social and they meet more people than barristers. Their work includes thing such as interviewing clients, negotiating on behalf of their clients and drafting documents such as wills and leases. A Barrister’s work includes paperwork, researching and presenting their research. As you can see from this, a solicitor has a much more social job.
A solicitor’s training begins with an A level or equivalent in Law, which leads to a Law Degree. They then partake in the Legal Practise Course that lasts for one year. However, if you did not get a Law Degree, you can take the Common Professional Examination, a one year Law course, and subsequently take the Legal Practise Course. You then undergo a two year training period before being qualified as a solicitor.
Training to be a barrister is similar to the training as solicitor receives. First you must have a Law Degree, and then you must become a member of an Inn of Court. If you have a Non-Law Degree, then you must take a one year Law Course, followed by the Common Professional Exam. If you are a non-graduate mature student, you may take a two year course followed by the Common Professional Exam. After this exam you must become a member of an Inn of Court. While a member you must attend Weekend Courses, previously you had to dine at the Inn, but this is no longer compulsory. This is followed by a one year Vocational Training Course or a one year Bar Examination Course. You are then called to the Bar, and must undergo pupillage from two qualified Barristers for a period of six months each or one Barrister for a period of twelve months. After this you may practise as a Barrister. However, if you do not partake in the pupillage, you may have an occupation as a non-practising Barrister.
The main difference in training in these two professions is that solicitors mostly take examinations, while barristers have to become a member of an Inn Court, in addition to the examinations. Barristers that wish to practise have to partake in pupillage for a year, while solicitors train for two years, before being qualified. This is quite similar. Barristers take on Junior Barristers and train them, who are known as ‘pupils’ and often sit with their masters in court to learn from them. Solicitors do not do this but may have similar training with their partners.
A Barrister thrives in an environment where advancement is based on individual’s ability or achievement. This is known as meritocracy. A solicitor on the other hand usually has a peer group for support.
In summary Solicitors generally tend to deal with the public and are similar to Doctors. Solicitors deal with day-to-day legal problems and various areas of the law. Historically Solicitors used to spend most of their time doing office work. However nowadays Solicitors tend to specialise in certain areas of the law including Court work. All Solicitors are members of The Law Society, which is their governing body.
Barristers are mainly Court advocates and spend a lot of their time arguing cases in Court. However Barristers also have to spend time in their offices providing advice and information to Solicitors and their clients. You can only get to use a Barrister through using a Solicitor. We can obtain Barristers written opinion on any matter of law in England and Wales.
B) Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of having a single legal profession.
There are numerous advantages to having a single legal profession by merging the legal professions together. This is known as fusion of the legal profession. The division of barrister and solicitors has been frequently criticised. The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 reduced the differences between barristers and solicitors, allowing solicitors to be advocates in the higher courts and to become High Court Judges. The Access to Justice Act 1999 gives all barristers and solicitors full rights of audience when they qualify. It also allows barristers to conduct litigation. These two changes mean that there is now very little difference between the professions, however, they both remain separate and have different roles to play.
The first and main advantage is that costs would be reduced tremendously as the client would only have to employ one person to perform two jobs. A person going to court will have one person as a solicitor and barrister, rather than two different people. This could also save costs to governments as less training would be required for many people, saving an enormous amount of money. The Community Legal Fund’s expenses would decrease by one million pounds each year, as suggested by the Legal Aid Scrutiny Report. The next point is that there would be much less duplication of work. Solicitors usually have to send all documents and statements from a case to a barrister. This is repetitive and is not necessary if handled by a single person. It is much more efficient and would save time on the client’s, solicitor’s and court’s behalf.
There would also be a higher level of continuity as the client deals with the same person throughout the case, rather than being transferred to a barrister whom the client does not know. Highlighted by research by Bottoms and McLean, the fact that in 96% of cases with guilty pleas and 79% of cases with not guilty pleas the clients do not even see their barrister until the morning of the trial, meaning basic points may be overlooked because of the unfamiliarity. Clients would be able to choose a barrister themselves, and not the solicitor. The final advantage is in training. Students would not have to make a decision to be a barrister or solicitor at such an early stage. They could train normally, and if they wished to become advocates later, they could take a specialised training course. It would be an advantage to merge in order to be inline with legal professions in other common law countries that have expert advocates; England is the only one with a divided profession.
However, there are also disadvantages of fusion of legal professions. Many barristers do not wish to merge. This is because they would stand at a loss, whereas the solicitors would gain. They would both have equivalent amounts of advocacy and paperwork and would be of equal status. In the current system the ratio of lawyers to clients is 2:1 but if there was a merger they ratio would be 1:1 hence creating more competition for employment. An effect of this could be that lawyer may lose money as they reduce prices as a result of strong competition. There are currently fewer solicitors in the courts with rights to audience than barristers, so barristers can charge as much as they want. With a merge, solicitors would get a better pay, yet barristers would not.
Solicitors working in small firms can easily get information from specialists in the current system. A solicitors firm in Devon can provide a client with a full range of advice as a result of this from a barrister. After the merge, however, all lawyers would be working for their own firms and this would lead to problems. First, it would be difficult to find specialists and secondly, a firm of lawyers would not go to a rival firm for advice. As well as this, the special skills of advocacy may be lost. It was suggested in 1979 by the Royal Commission that if the two professions merged it would jeopardize the quality of advocacy. As barristers have to do court work every day, they acquire knowledge and skill to do their job. In a merged profession there would be less court work, so there would not be as high a skill level.
At the moment barristers are obliged to accept a case, regardless of wealth, or the popularity and success rate of the case. This is known as the ‘cab rank’ principle and ensures that everybody can be represented. After a merge, this rule would probably not apply, as solicitors do not work under this principle, and it would be difficult to operate in a unified profession. Solicitors have the option to reject cases if they are not desirable, so one of the professions would have to adopt a new system. Relating to an earlier argument, the barrister is detached from the case. This means that the barrister is more objective then a solicitor with a client, but in a unified profession, the barrister would meet on a person-to-person basis with the client.
Finally, some argue that the fusion would only save a minimal amount of money for the client, as solicitor’s overheads are much greater than barrister’s. As well as this, only a small amount of work is saved as the same number of witnesses, documents and court time are needed as before. Fusion would make appointments into the Judiciary more difficult, although there will be more candidates to choose from they will be less distinguished to the Lord Chancellor and his advisors. As there are fewer barristers, many have reputations and are well known. This would be lost with a merge. This would make the whole process much more difficult. The Lord Chancellor would not be familiar with any of the candidates, as there would now be many more.
From all of these points, I conclude that it is more beneficial for the two professions to merge. There are major advantages to the majority of the public, and these overrule the minor disadvantages that would be present at the beginning of the changeover. Although there seem to be more disadvantages, many are questionable and can be overcome. For example, the argument that solicitors would not gain adequate practice in order to improve their expertise at presenting cases in the higher courts is just a short term issue and would be overcome as the new system progresses. If there were to be only one profession there would be no difference between barristers and solicitors and so they would all have equal training and opportunity to develop the necessary skills. Therefore, in the long run differing skills between barristers and solicitors would not be a problem. Many of the advantages affect the majority, and the system would be more efficient. Therefore, I agree that the two legal professions should fuse into one.
