Solicitors in court? (1 Viewer)

[RogueAcademic]

Under what circumstances can solicitors make appearances in court? I've never been able to figure this one out.

Besides taking the usual role of the instructor for a barrister in court.

 

[Bobness]

Under what circumstances can solicitors make appearances in court? I've never been able to figure this one out.

Besides taking the usual role of the instructor for a barrister in court.

When they're on trial for overcharging their clients, the Keddies (Mr. and Mrs. Keddy).

 

[RogueAcademic]

*golf clap*

 

[subdued123]

hi!

It used to phase me too.

The long and the short of it is this: there is no difference. Solicitor and barrister are terms used to describe specialities within the field of legal practice. But can a solicitor appear in court? yes. Can a solicitor face off against a QC? If they wanted. But they wouldn't do this, because it'd be suicide. Unless you're Hammerschlag J - read his swearing in speech here for an interesting take on this story (brownie points if you report back here what it is).

And just to end any doubt, s 87 of the Legal Profession Act states thus:

Legal Profession Act 2004 No 112

87 Advocates

(1) Barristers and solicitors may act as advocates.

(2) Barristers and solicitors may appear, and have a right of audience, in any court as advocates.

(3) Joint rules may be made about ethical rules to be observed by barristers and solicitors in the practice of advocacy.​

So just look at the tags as descriptors of specialities and you'll be right.

 

[RogueAcademic]

The long and the short of it is this: there is no difference. Solicitor and barrister are terms used to describe specialities within the field of legal practice. But can a solicitor appear in court? yes. Can a solicitor face off against a QC? If they wanted. But they wouldn't do this, because it'd be suicide.

That's what I thought too! But why do you say it's suicide? Because of a QC's experience in the battleground of the court?

If there isn't a difference, why the stark categorical difference between a solicitor and a barrister?

I'll check out the link you provided.

 

[subdued123]

It's like this (and I am good at useless analogies)

In cricket, who can bat? Just a batter?

No, a bowler can too, but probably not with the same results. Can a bowler open the batting? Or vice versa? Sure.

Same with legal practitioners. A solicitor could be retained as advocate in a complex commercial case. But the barrister specialises in courtroom advocacy. The barrister has a rapport with the court. The barrister is well versed in court etiquette and procedure.

And that's why you wouldn't use a solicitor.

 

[RogueAcademic]

That's what I thought!

I was previously confused as to why barristers have to go through a bar readers course, I thought it was a kind of mandatory prerequisite 'qualification' before you're allowed to act as an advocate in court.

Well there are two types of barristers, there's the regular barrister, and there's the crown prosecutor. The crown prosecutor looks to be an even more specialised type of barrister as they only represent the State (or Crown, as it were) in criminal trials. If I'm not mistaken, they are not paid in the same open way that barristers are, crown prosecutors are paid a set statutory remuneration. Would anyone have any insight as to how or why a lawyer would choose to become a crown prosecutor, other than, perhaps a specific interest in criminal law?

 

[Bobness]

It's like this (and I am good at useless analogies)

In cricket, who can bat? Just a batter?

No, a bowler can too, but probably not with the same results. Can a bowler open the batting? Or vice versa? Sure.

Same with legal practitioners. A solicitor could be retained as advocate in a complex commercial case. But the barrister specialises in courtroom advocacy. The barrister has a rapport with the court. The barrister is well versed in court etiquette and procedure.

And that's why you wouldn't use a solicitor.

That's a pretty good analogy though.

Almost as as good as Lord Denning's

 

[subdued123]

thanks, i'm getting a big head now. I'll quit while i'm ahead.

And to rogueacademic - you'll become a crown prosecutor if you love criminal law and an overriding sense of doing justice. You wouldn't do it for the money, that's for sure - but then again, many top defence counsel have had stints in the DPP/Crown Prosecutors.

It's like why some people become equity counsel, tax counsel, etc. Because you like it. Simple as that.

 

[Frigid]

strictly obiter, but my favourite part of the swearing-in speech:

Your Honour has a well developed taste for the politically incorrect. Long ago when he was President of our Court of Appeal Justice Kirby decreed that Latin should not be used either in submissions or judgments. Determined to rebel against this orthodoxy, your Honour and fellow classics scholar, Bernie Coles QC, decided to commence your own insurgency. In the regular insolvency cases you had against each other, your Honour and Coles QC competed to see how many Latin phrases could be included in a morning’s submissions. We understand that The Honourable R P Meagher QC is proposing to subscribe to your judgments.

 

[RogueAcademic]

You wouldn't do it for the money, that's for sure - but then again, many top defence counsel have had stints in the DPP/Crown Prosecutors.

The remuneration for CPs ain't bad at all though.. it's not like they're anywhere near the poverty line.

It's like why some people become equity counsel, tax counsel, etc. Because you like it. Simple as that.

Yes but those are just tags for personal marketing purposes for any barrister who chooses to specialise. CPs are in a class of their own, governed by statute.

 

[subdued123]

Yes, you are correct. You asked me why a person would become a Crown Prosecutor and I told you. Because you liked it.

I don't understand why you took exception to my response.

 

[RogueAcademic]

Hey now, I did not take exception at all. I appreciate the info you've given. Now that you've cleared up the solicitor-barrister thing, I'm now trying to understand the 'sub-class' of barristers, that is CPs, and the process of becoming one, and how it differs from the regular barrister, how the CPs fit into the overall picture of the Bar.

I really wouldn't mind going down the path of the barrister but I 'think' I would much prefer to do the job of the CP, rather than defence. This perception of mine about CPs, however skewed or unrealistic or uninformed or judgmental it may be, is predominantly influenced by the number of cases I've seen where a barrister (quite honourably, I might add) perform his/her duty in representing a convicted murderer or paedophile etc. I'd do the job too if I had to, but I'd rather not have to. And one way to ensure I never have to is to be a CP. At least that's how I think it works.

I'm only starting to understand now, that CPs are very different from being a regular barrister in that they are not as independant as regular barristers as they are under the pay of the State, they perform their duties only in the criminal jurisdiction, it's closer to a job for a large company than that of the other barristers who function like a sole proprietor (in spirit, I know the reality is more diverse, eg. resembling a partnership as part of chambers).

 

[Cookie182]

here i was thinking that the whole idea of being admitted to the bar and hence being a barrister was that it enabled you to have right of audience in all types of courts. I was under the impression that a solicitor could practice advocacy within lower courts ie local, but anything such as trials in the district/supreme required a barrister???

 

[hfis]

Lawyers have the right of audience in all courts.

A solicitor spends most of their time in the office and occasionally goes to court.

A barrister lives in the court room and is sexually aroused by court practice directions.

Hence, if you have a big case in a big court, you would normally hire a barrister, even though both are qualified to appear. This is where your impression comes from.

 

[withoutaface]

I can't wait to become an advocate.

So, as I understand it, the solictors are the writers, and the barristers are the advocates?

Does that make GLeonard some kind of superlawyer?

 

[melsc]

Lawyers have the right of audience in all courts.

A solicitor spends most of their time in the office and occasionally goes to court.

A barrister lives in the court room and is sexually aroused by court practice directions.

Hence, if you have a big case in a big court, you would normally hire a barrister, even though both are qualified to appear. This is where your impression comes from.

Court rooms are sexy after all

Also Barrister's do not work in firms and do not form partnerships, they are soul practioners and work alone generally in a big building 'chambers' with other barristers.

You will generally see solicitors in lower courts, things like a bail app in the local court, traffic offences etc don't need a barrister.

 

[Bobness]

Court rooms are sexy after all

Also Barrister's do not work in firms and do not form partnerships, they are soul practioners and work alone generally in a big building 'chambers' with other barristers.

You will generally see solicitors in lower courts, things like a bail app in the local court, traffic offences etc don't need a barrister.

Sole practitioners?

Well, i guess you're right in that they give up their soul/s

 

[RogueAcademic]

 

[Bobness]

*golf clap*