Comments on: what’s the difference between a barrister and a solicitor?

By: Law studend

Law studend — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 15:52:44 +0000

I was having doubts concerning the difference between barristers and solicitors, now I am not.
Thank you

By: Alison

Alison — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:16:53 +0000

I haven’t heard anyone distinguish between learned and (presumably non-learned) friends for many years. I would be pretty shocked, and seriously pissed off, if anyone did so now. The last time it happened to me, it was some ancient silk who was slapped down pretty sharply by the High Court judge in question for what she saw as discourtesy. Quite right too! He had to apologise and I had to try not to smirk. What I can never figuer out is whether to be annoyed or please when judges assume you are Counsel – I normally take it as a compliment but what it means is that some judges still can’t believe that solicitors can stand on their hind legs and talk at the same time…

By: familoo

familoo — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 22:29:02 +0000

yeah – what she said…

By: mummyinlaw

mummyinlaw — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:20:07 +0000

Ouch. In response to the previous comments, there are plenty of solicitor-advocates and solicitors who conduct a significant amount of representation in the tribunals and magistrates courts who are absolutely competent advocates. Many clients actually prefer the continuity of having their solicitor represent them. Equally, some feel more comfortable having counsel represent them.

Conversely, I have heard of some barristers whose practices mainly consist of advice, drafting and negotiation of settlement rather than lots of attending hearings.

I think it is also worth mentioning the ILEX legal execs, whom I believe consider themselves the third strand of the legal profession.

I wouldn’t pay much attention to the wigs and phrases – whilst those of us without them are perhaps secretly a little jealous, everyone is well aware they are really only of historical relevance.

By: familoo

familoo — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 11:05:31 +0000

It’s a common misconception to think that barristers are promoted to barrister once they have gained their experience as a solicitor when in fact they are just two different types of lawyers with slightly different skill sets. In many types of hearing neither barrister nor solicitor wears any regalia. Whilst barristers specialise in advocacy more than most solicitors, there are many competent solicitor advocates who do all their own advocacy.

By: Charmaine Clarke

Charmaine Clarke — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 12:53:52 +0000

It is in my opinion that a barrister has more expertise and therefore referred to as a learned friend. The wearng of the tradition regalia would lead one to believe by wearing the wig andgown and solicitors do not, it is also they represent the clients in court and solicitors are less competent in this field.

By: Law Teacher

Law Teacher — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:35:40 +0000

Great entry – will be making use of this with my students! Many thanks

By: familoo

familoo — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:55:27 +0000

@ AXG: it’s true that there is a tradition of referring to ‘my learned friend’ or ‘my friend’ depending on whether or not one is referring to counsel or solicitor, but I think it’s really a vestigial phrase – little real meaning. If anything it may reflect the greater expertise in advocacy that barristers usually have, but frankly I make a point of referring to opponents as ‘my learned friend’ even if they are solicitors as I think the distinction is artificial and the use of differential terminology comes across as arrogant and out of touch.

By: AXG

AXG — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:52:19 +0000

“One is not ‘better’, more experienced or more senior than the other”

Just a matter of point, but in court barristers are referred to as “learned friend” by a solicitor whereas a solicitor is referred to only as a “friend”. This denotes some form of seniority between the two if only as a formality in the court room.