in August 2007 right at the start of Pink Tape, I wrote a post called ‘What’s the difference between a barrister and a solicitor?’

Although that post is almost 20 years old it remains one of the all time most visited pages on this blog. Surprisingly, it remains more or less accurate (though it has a surprising number of typos and missed capitals), and it appears that it remains as needed as ever – a recent post on LinkedIn described continuing misinformation that perpetuate the idea of barristers being better or higher than solicitors. That prompted me to take another look at my old post.

I thought that I’d just give the 2007 post a bit of spit and polish, to make sure it is applicable to 2026. So here goes… (if you want to read the original post you can read that here). You will notice that I didn’t mention legal executives in my original post, I think because I was trying to keep things simple. But it seems important to add them in to this updated version, because they are one of the three types of lawyers in this legal system, and they are an important part of it too (sorry, legal exes, I know you’ve had a tough time of it lately). I’ve kept the same title, because experience tells me that it most closely matches the sort of search terms people type into google. I’ve also added a few bits of detail and some headings for ease of reading. Hopefully version 2.0 is both new and improved.

What’s the difference between a barrister and a solicitor? (actually, what’s the difference between a barrister, a solicitor and a legal executive)

Barristers, solicitors and legal executives are all lawyers, but they are different types of lawyers. There are many similarities and many differences. One is not ‘better’, more experienced or more senior than the other. They have quite different training and expertise and do different types of legal work. The system that operates in England & Wales is a ‘split’ system, where there is a division of labour between these two types of lawyers. In some countries (such as America) there is a ‘fused’ system where all lawyers can (potentially) do all things, although of course they will tend to specialise.

Training

Barristers and solicitors will all have done either a law degree or another degree followed by a one year law conversion course. Those courses will teach them the basics of the main areas of law (things like Land Law, Contract Law etc). They will all then have done a vocational course, which is focused on how to be a lawyer rather than the law. For solicitors that includes things like handling client money, litigation, whilst for barristers it is heavily focused on advocacy, Both vocational courses involve learning about court procedure. After the vocational stage solicitors will go on to do a 2 year training contract, working in a law firm under supervision, whilst barristers go on to do a one year pupillage, working in a chambers supervised by a more senior barrister (a pupil supervisor). They will only be allowed to speak in court after the first six months.

The route for legal executives is more varied. Typically a legal executive might not have a degree at all and might start out working in a law firm, and carry out their training over a number of years whilst working as a paralegal or assistant in the law firm, building up a portfolio of work and taking exams over a period of time. By the time they qualify they are often very experienced lawyers, and many of them have a particularly in depth knowledge of the area of law they specialise in. For example, there are some very knowledgeable legal executives with a real specialism in family law. This route is often chosen by those with family / caring commitments or who have for whatever reason not been able to take a traditional route into law.

Solicitors and legal executives can do extra training to add to their rights of audience, and more recently barristers have been able to do extra training to be able to carry out litigation (see below – though not many do so).

Business structure

The explanation that follows tells you about the typical arrangements for most barristers and most solicitors – but as with much in life there are often exceptions to the rule. So, barristers are (usually) self employed. Solicitors are (usually) not: they are employed or partners. Barristers don’t usually operate as partnerships or companies, and the majority trade as sole traders, but group together for economy and marketing under one roof which is called a ‘chambers’.

Because barristers within one chambers are all independent from one another they can act on different sides in the same dispute, but solicitors in the same firm can’t do this because they aren’t independent from each other and would have a conflict of interests. It is very common for a barrister in independent practice to represent one party involved in a case, and their (independent) colleague in the same chambers to represent the other, but when this happens they will have to be instructed by different solicitors firms. Legal executives will typically be employed within a firm alongside solicitors.

Advocacy and litigation

Barristers are specialist advocates or specialists in a particular area of law (or both).

Solicitors and legal executives do also specialise, and some do their own advocacy, but most solicitors are primarily litigators. This means meeting the client, working out what the case is, sorting out the paperwork, communicating with the other party’s solicitors and where necessary instructing a barrister to advise about the law or to go to court and represent the client on their behalf. (There is currently a legal issue about what tasks legal executives are allowed to do, and which bits have to be done by a solicitor, which is likely to be clarified by the Court of Appeal soon in a case called Mazur.) There are some differences between barristers, solicitors and legal executives’ rights of audience – i.e. which courts they are allowed to speak in. Barristers are allowed to speak in any court, right the way up to the Supreme Court. Solicitors are allowed to speak in the Family Court (and some in the High Court), and for Legal Executives it depends, but they can speak in most family court cases.

Barristers spend a lot of their time in court, talking to other barristers, dealing with witnesses giving evidence and addressing the Judge. Solicitors often come to court to support a barrister by taking a note or having the files to hand incase the barrister needs something. Increasingly often a barrister attends court without a solicitor. This is often more cost effective.

A barrister is often paid by the piece of work, i.e. £x to attend for this hearing and £y to draft this document. A solicitor usually bills by the hour. Barristers are usually sent to court because it’s cheaper than sending a solicitor who bills by the hour or because the barrister is more experienced at dealing with the court side of the process (or both).

A client can instruct a solicitor directly, but to instruct a barrister you usually have to first instruct a solicitor, and the solicitor will instruct a barrister for you. An exception to this is ‘direct access’ instruction, where a client can instruct a barrister directly. This is only suitable in certain types of cases and only where the client can effectively act as their own solicitor. Not all barristers accept instructions in this way and most of those who do work this way will assess in each case whether the client and the case is one where they should agree to do the job without a solicitor. In some cases, it’s really better (and actually more cost effective) to have both.

Cab rank rule

All lawyers have very similar ethical and professional rules. They are all expected to be honest, to act in their client’s best interests, but to always put their duty to the court first. One important distinction between barristers and other lawyers is a rule called the ‘cab rank rule’. The rule means that if a solicitor asks to instruct a particular barrister for their client, and that barrister is available and competent to carry out the job, they can’t say ‘no’ because they don’t like the client or their politics. This is to make sure that everybody is able to secure representation even if they are unpopular, unlikeable or look guilty. There are some exceptions when this rule doesn’t apply. One exception is that this rule doesn’t apply to direct access instructions, so a barrister is allowed to say ‘no’ if they don’t think the case or client is suitable to be worked without a solicitor. Another is when a barrister is working as an employed lawyer (for example in the Government Legal Department). Firms of solicitors (including legal executives) don’t have to apply the cab rank rule. All lawyers have rules that restrict when and how they can pull out of working for a particular client once they have agreed to act – and rules that very occasionally mean they have to stop working for a client immediately (for example they will be ‘professionally embarrassed’ and have to withdraw from the case if they can’t continue without misleading the court).

Piecework / continuity

A barrister will often – but not always – deal with a case all the way through, and the solicitor will check in with them regularly for advice and for them to oversee the case strategy. In other cases a barrister is only briefed for a particular hearing or piece of advice, and instructions might be sent each time a specific piece of work needs to be done (a hearing, a piece of drafting), so there might be different barristers dealing with a case, although the solicitor will remain responsible the whole way through. This is because a solicitor is retained by a client and is responsible for dealing with what comes up as it comes up, but a barrister cannot always be available for a client to attend a particular hearing because these dates are not known at the outset. If a barrister has been previously booked to do something else for another client on the date in question she will have to honour that first commitment, unless the first client agrees to their release (perhaps because an alternative barrister is offered that the client is happy with).

Judges

Barristers, solicitors and legal executives can become judges, although historically more judges have come from the bar than from solicitors and legal executives.

As with everything – the points above are not true all of the time, but they are generally applicable.

Teamwork

Barristers are divided up into ‘junior counsel’ and ‘senior counsel’ (also called ‘silks’ or ‘King’s Counsel’ or ‘leading counsel’). Junior counsel is any barrister who isn’t a King’s Counsel, right from the newbies to the very experienced. So, I was junior counsel until a couple of years ago, even though I’d been doing the job for 20 years (sometimes experienced juniors get called ‘senior juniors’ just to confuse you).

King’s Counsel are instructed when a case is really complex. Often – but not always – they will work with a junior, occasionally more than one junior, on a case because of the complexity and / or volume of work.

Whether or not King’s Counsel are involved, the system works best when all the lawyers on a team work together – as a team. One of the best parts of my job as King’s Counsel is working in a team with my junior and the solicitor or legal executive who is instructing me. We all have our part to play in getting a good outcome for our client, and each of us is as important as the other. The best teams and the best outcomes are produced when all the different types of lawyers respect one another’s roles and skillsets.

The best lawyers will also work constructively with lawyers from other teams, even when their cases are opposed.

Post script 24 Jan 2026 – Dispute resolution

A solicitor has helpfully suggested that perhaps not all solicitors think of themselves as ‘litigators’ these days and it has prompted me to add a little p.s. She is right I’m sure, that this is not how some solicitors view themselves, and indeed it is not even what they spend most of their time doing. In the world of family law many lawyers – whether solicitors, barristers or legal execs, consider themselves dispute resolution specialists as much as lawyers. They might be dual qualified or trained as arbitrators, mediators, collaborative lawyers, ‘private judges’ or even therapists, and solicitors in particular sometimes offer a wrap around service through their firms for families in crisis post-separation (financial advice, counselling and coaching for instance). Many family lawyers would say they are not about litigation as much as about avoiding it. But nonetheless, whenever a lawyer steers a client away from court as a way to resolve their dispute, they are doing so in the context of potential litigation (or in the shadow of the law as mediators often say), and using their knowledge and expertise about litigation to support clients through the process whether that is in litigation or pre-litigation or not. Hopefully that is a useful (further!) caveat to what I’ve said above.