Do We Need Barristers?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2023
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the distinction between solicitors and barristers? What is the purpose of the independent Bar in our legal system today? How does England and Wales compare with common law jurisdictions which have abandoned, or have never had, a split profession?
Is the Bar’s history as a bastion of privilege, its various historical monopolies and prerogatives, and its culture and organisation problematic? What are the benefits of an independent Bar?
A lecture by Leslie Thomas KC recorded on 2 February 2023 at Barnard's Inn Hall, London.
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website:
www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/b...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
Website: gresham.ac.uk
Twitter: / greshamcollege
Facebook: / greshamcollege
Instagram: / greshamcollege
Fascinating! As an American, I've always wondered about the difference between a solicitor and a barrister.
In New Zealand we have a fused system, lawyers qualify as ‘barrister and solicitor’; however the general rule is that individuals tend to specialise in either advocacy or administration & litigation.
That final question is the same dilemma I faced a year ago. I chose the Solicitor path because I felt more comfortable being a FTE. Also, generally it seems like you can achieve financial success far sooner when you begin a training contract (in a top corporate law firm) as opposed to when you begin your pupilage.
I do still enjoy performing advocacy however and I am interested in becoming a Solicitor advocate.
Well, somebody has to serve me my coffee.
I do not have a horse in this race being from America, however find the history interesting. From an outsider's point of view it is very confusing and I do not see what is really being gained here that can not also be done simply by attorney specialization. Even in the current split system there apparently already is specialization anyway where some may get more or less exposure or experience/work at doing certain tasks. Seems to be a lot of wasted effort/man hours to have a parallel system not to mention the added cost and confusion to the public which the profession ultimately serves. To my eyes it appears more like a system that solely still exists as it can charge the public more for the duplicate/split efforts involved.
I'm literally a lay representative for a friend in the employment tribunal. All fun and games ha ha.
Solicitors are rubbish at making coffee. I'll get my coat.
I think they should be fused
That's not the question. The question is; Should barristers be paid as much as they are? All barristers fees should be capped at $1,000 per day. That would sort out the true professionals from the dollar disciples.
Generally dull lectures those on law. Watch the grass grow.