Why Barristers?

donaghs

Hi, I'm posing this question from the point of view of the general public. Those who see the Law as primarily relating to people's Rights, rather than as a source of income.

Obviously if you work as a barrister, know someone who does, or are considering it as a career, who might not want this profession to disappear.

But, from an inquisitive hypothetical point of view, do we really need barristers? Could we make do simply with lawyers as is the case in the US and other places.

One argument in favour of having them is that they are specialists who can bring extra skill and knowledge of a subject matter to a case. But could you simply replace this by having specialist lawyers?

Perhaps perceptions of barristers has been coloured by lingering anachronistic practices. E.g. wigs and gowns, not being able to approach a barrister directly without a solicitor (now changed?), etc?

johnnyskeleton

A solicitor can represent you in all courts in all areas of law, so no, you don't need a barrister.

However, the Market decides whether barristers provide value and the Market says that they do (mostly)

FreudianSlippers

donaghs wrote: »

Those who see the Law as primarily relating to people's Rights, rather than as a source of income.

Ouch!

In all seriousness, I don't think many Solicitors or Barristers enter the profession just to make money. They get into the job because they have an interest in the law and implementation of justice. Barristers exist to represent the interests of this country and its people. The Barrister's duty is to represent the client but not to deceive or mislead the court when representing the client.

To say that Solicitors and Barristers get into the profession only to make money is like saying that doctors do it just to make money. A profession is a profession and someone has to get paid for it.

donaghs wrote: »

Obviously if you work as a barrister, know someone who does, or are considering it as a career, who might not want this profession to disappear.

Not to mention that there is a lot of tradition in the profession and many intelligent and hard-working people.

donaghs wrote: »

But, from an inquisitive hypothetical point of view, do we really need barristers? Could we make do simply with lawyers as is the case in the US and other places.

We could go that route, but I think it's important to have a Solicitor who represents the client and a more impartial Barrister who pleads that case in front of the court.
Not to mention that in the US, the style of how cases are heard is quite different.

donaghs wrote: »

One argument in favour of having them is that they are specialists who can bring extra skill and knowledge of a subject matter to a case. But could you simply replace this by having specialist lawyers?

Perhaps perceptions of barristers has been coloured by lingering anachronistic practices. E.g. wigs and gowns, not being able to approach a barrister directly without a solicitor (now changed?), etc?

I think the wig and gown is more of a symbol of the impartiality that Barristers should have along with the "justice is blind" concept. IMO at least.
Barristers still cannot accept instructions directly from clients, but if anything I think this is beneficial to the clients.

Of course I'm not exactly impartial in the matter :P

FreudianSlippers

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

A solicitor can represent you in all courts in all areas of law, so no, you don't need a barrister.

However, the Market decides whether barristers provide value and the Market says that they do (mostly)

It's pretty rare to see a solicitor before a judge in anything but the District Court. In fact I can't remember ever seeing it so far in my short career.

johnnyskeleton

OisinT wrote: »

It's pretty rare to see a solicitor before a judge in anything but the District Court. In fact I can't remember ever seeing it so far in my short career.

Niall Michel, Alan Shatter, David Galvin, Damien Tansey, Michael Finucane, Gerard O'Herlihy and many more besides have all run cases before the Superior Courts.

I'm sure you could name several times more than that if you had a mind to. It is more common to see them instructing counsel in the Circuit, High and Supreme Court, but they often do the cases themselves and any solicitor is perfectly entitled to run a case in the higher courts if their client instructs them to.

FreudianSlippers

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Niall Michel, Alan Shatter, David Galvin, Damien Tansey, Michael Finucane, Gerard O'Herlihy and many more besides have all run cases before the Superior Courts.

I'm sure you could name several times more than that if you had a mind to.

I just meant I've never personally seen it. I know they are entitled to do so (Courts Act 1971 right?)

Thirdfox

donaghs wrote: »

But, from an inquisitive hypothetical point of view, do we really need barristers? Could we make do simply with lawyers as is the case in the US and other places.

I believe that in the US - the system is set up as to have lawyers who are transaction focused (our solicitors) or litigation focused (barristers). So this divide still exists in a manner, just with a different name.

Reloc8

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Niall Michel, Alan Shatter, David Galvin, Damien Tansey, Michael Finucane, Gerard O'Herlihy and many more besides have all run cases before the Superior Courts.

I'm sure you could name several times more than that if you had a mind to. It is more common to see them instructing counsel in the Circuit, High and Supreme Court, but they often do the cases themselves and any solicitor is perfectly entitled to run a case in the higher courts if their client instructs them to.

I think its important to acknowledge the fine advocacy before the courts of the solicitors you mention and many others.

At the same time, it is perfectly accurate to state that solicitors conducting cases before the superior courts are, for whatever reason, rare relative to the norm.

There is of course no doubt whatsoever that any solicitor is indeed perfectly entitled to run any case in any court.

nuac

The present system works.

Barristers are single practitioners, available for hire. Even the smallest solicitors' practice has access to barristers specialising in the area needed - called the cab rank principle.

If there were not a separate bar, there would still be specialist lawyers, but they would gravitate to the larger firms, and would not be available generally.

There are many other pros and cons but from my experience the system works reasonable well.

Solicitors can do cases in Circuit Court and High Court. I have done so myself in specialist areas, but it involves a commitment of knowledge, time, and energy which is not always available.

When a barrister is in court dealing with a case, that is his/her commitment for the day. Messages are not coming into the barrister while in court that an urgent matter has arisen in the office, or a visit has be made to the hospital immediately about a will etc etc.
'

McCrack

I agree with Nuac. The present system has far more advantages than a fused profession. If the profession were to become fused the cost of legal services would be higher. A nucleus would develop amoungst firms specialising in particular areas to the detriment of the client.

As it stands a litigent can walk into the smallest of firm on the high street and get the most respected and eminent Counsel to act for them.

On a practical side solicitors just don't have the time to be mulling over Papers and precedents to draft pleadings and fomulate strategy and they don't have time to attend Courts for half a day with their one particular case. They are running a business at the end of the day and that in itself takes up a lost of focus and energy.

drkpower

McCrack wrote: »

On a practical side solicitors just don't have the time to be mulling over Papers and precedents to draft pleadings and fomulate strategy .......

Hold your horses there - some of us do!

But on the general point, there are certain situations where a good Counsel is invaluable. Advocacy is a particular skill and one which you need to exercise regularly. Second, a fresh independent pair of eyes is often needed, and is worth paying for.

But the primary reason for the independent bar is the 'access for everyone' principle. Talented advocates would mostly gravitate to high paying large firms if the solicitor/barrister distinction was broken and while that might suit me, it would do little for equality access to high quality legal representation.

donaghs

OisinT wrote: »

In all seriousness, I don't think many Solicitors or Barristers enter the profession just to make money. They get into the job because they have an interest in the law and implementation of justice. Barristers exist to represent the interests of this country and its people. The Barrister's duty is to represent the client but not to deceive or mislead the court when representing the client

To say that Solicitors and Barristers get into the profession only to make money is like saying that doctors do it just to make money. A profession is a profession and someone has to get paid for it..

Some very good reponses there. I also don't want to come across as overly cynical or negative in my query. In understand that money isn't always the sole motive for picking a career. But I believe people feel that going to a doctor is a necessity, people will always get unwell, its natural. The legal system on the other hand is man-made. Hence people's views on it being more ambiguous.

I realise the there is pride and prestige associated with profession, but I don't believe that the idea of "professions" are set in stone. Their function can disappear, they can be deregulated out of existence, and new ones can emerge.

OisinT wrote: »

Not to mention that there is a lot of tradition in the profession and many intelligent and hard-working people.

True, but if for some reason people saw no requirement to hire a barrister, hard work and intelligence would be employed elsewhere.

Maybe I do sound to sceptical, but sometimes I wonder if the system must be so complex and archaic, and if this is only advantageous to those who profit from it?

A interesting comparison are accountacy and tax professionals. It can make a lot of sense for a self-employed person to hire one. But isn't there something fundamentally wrong with having to pay someone just to find out what proportion of your income you are entitled to keep? An unnecessarily complicated system ensures this will be the case.

johnnyskeleton

donaghs wrote: »

Some very good reponses there. I also don't want to come across as overly cynical or negative in my query. In understand that money isn't always the sole motive for picking a career. But I believe people feel that going to a doctor is a necessity, people will always get unwell, its natural. The legal system on the other hand is man-made. Hence people's views on it being more ambiguous.

I don't think you're comparing like for like there.

Being sick is natural. In a society it is an issue that needs to be dealt with (so people can live longer etc). Medicine is a man made system designed to combat that issue for the betterment of society. Medicine also includes elective surgeries like breast augmentation.

Having disputes is natural. In a society it is an issue that needs to be dealt with (so people don't kill each other and so that contracts can be enforced and business done). Law is a mad made system designed to combat that issue for the betterment of society. Law also includes elective types of case, such as examinership or wardship.

donaghs wrote: »

I realise the there is pride and prestige associated with profession, but I don't believe that the idea of "professions" are set in stone. Their function can disappear, they can be deregulated out of existence, and new ones can emerge.

Of course, but I wouldn't be too keen to "deregulate" it out of existence (I think you mean regulate it out of existence if you are advocating the abolition of the bar; deregulation of the legal profession would mean adding in a third type of lawyer such as an expert conveyancer or tax advocate or the like.

donaghs wrote: »

True, but if for some reason people saw no requirement to hire a barrister, hard work and intelligence would be employed elsewhere.

Is your argument that we shouldn't have barristers or that we shouldn't have lawyers?

donaghs wrote: »

Maybe I do sound to sceptical, but sometimes I wonder if the system must be so complex and archaic, and if this is only advantageous to those who profit from it?

Look into this point a bit more. But it is of limited use to make general statements about it being archaic (unless of course you have a proposal to introduce an entirely new system that has a realistic chance of working), instead you should look at specific instances of how it is archaic and complex and how it could be improved.

One cautionary tale that I might give is that anti-lawyer /anti-courts sentiment has made the idea of arbitration/mediation/ADR seem more attractive than going into court. But the problem with it is that the lawyers' costs are almost as much (can be more if the arbitration runs off the tracks - expert judges tend to keep things on an even keel and established legal costs practices keep court costs reasonably predictable) but then you have to pay the arbitrator and the costs of the venue etc. So by trying to avoid court it ends up costing more with little recourse if a bad decision is made.

donaghs wrote: »

A interesting comparison are accountacy and tax professionals. It can make a lot of sense for a self-employed person to hire one. But isn't there something fundamentally wrong with having to pay someone just to find out what proportion of your income you are entitled to keep? An unnecessarily complicated system ensures this will be the case.

No. Most professional services are things that people could do themselves but it would be an uneconomic use of time or there is a benefit to experience and connections etc. For example, why do you need an estate agent to sell your house? In the modern age it is easy to just take a few digital snaps, do a few measurements and put it up on daft.ie for a few quid. You could say it is fundamentally wrong to have to pay someone just to sell your house.But yet people use estate agents because they provide "added value", whether that is by increasing the price, lowering the sale time or just generally making things smoother and giving the vendor some assistance during a difficult time.

There's also an argument that anyone who represents themselves in court will be at an inherent disadvantage, even if they make the exact same points a lawyer would make.

Thirdfox

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't think you're comparing like for like there.

Being sick is natural. In a society it is an issue that needs to be dealt with (so people can live longer etc). Medicine is a man made system designed to combat that issue for the betterment of society. Medicine also includes elective surgeries like breast augmentation.

Having disputes is natural. In a society it is an issue that needs to be dealt with (so people don't kill each other and so that contracts can be enforced and business done). Law is a mad made system designed to combat that issue for the betterment of society. Law also includes elective types of case, such as examinership or wardship...

Freudian slip? :pac:

johnnyskeleton

Thirdfox wrote: »

Freudian slip? :pac:

You heard me!

OASA 1939

Hi all
This is my first post ever on the "boards .ie"
I am currently studying law LLB at Independent colleges in Dublin, having just
finished year two. I can now nearly see the end of year 3 ! and am wondering
whether I should apply next year for courses to qualify as a solicitor or barrister.
Has anyone got any tips ?
Can one find employment now in either of them ?
What is the pay like ?
Which area has the better prospects of working for oneself ?
Any other pointers ?

many thanks.

Farcear

If you use the forum search function, you will find *loads* of posts about these points.

valleyoftheunos

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No. Most professional services are things that people could do themselves but it would be an uneconomic use of time or there is a benefit to experience and connections etc. For example, why do you need an estate agent to sell your house? In the modern age it is easy to just take a few digital snaps, do a few measurements and put it up on daft.ie for a few quid. You could say it is fundamentally wrong to have to pay someone just to sell your house.But yet people use estate agents because they provide "added value", whether that is by increasing the price, lowering the sale time or just generally making things smoother and giving the vendor some assistance during a difficult time.

There's also an argument that anyone who represents themselves in court will be at an inherent disadvantage, even if they make the exact same points a lawyer would make.

Big +1 on this, I could do my own tax returns but I don't, I pay an accountant to do it for me because they do it better than me, faster than me and allows me to spend the time doing something else. There are plenty of things a Lawyer does for people that can be done by people themselves but a lawyer will do them easier and faster because they do them all the time as opposed to once a year or a handful of times in a life time. And to go a step further than that a solicitor can run cases in court but he wont do it very often, best to leave that difficult job to someone specialised, ie a barrister, after all it is an entirely different skill set.

Procrastastudy

OASA 1939 wrote: »

Hi all
This is my first post ever on the "boards .ie"
I am currently studying law LLB at Independent colleges in Dublin, having just
finished year two. I can now nearly see the end of year 3 ! and am wondering
whether I should apply next year for courses to qualify as a solicitor or barrister.
Has anyone got any tips ?
Can one find employment now in either of them ?
What is the pay like ?
Which area has the better prospects of working for oneself ?
Any other pointers ?

many thanks.

Speak to any one of the barristers and solicitors working at indo perhaps?