I have been cast in Enchanted April as Mellersh, a family solicitor. The play is set in England and Italy in the early 1920s. Throughout, Mellersh is intent upon making a good impression by showing off his (allegedly) perfect marriage in order to accrue more clients.
Wikipedia was helpful only to the point of saying that solicitors provided legal advice to the public on those cases which did not actually appear before a judge, and that he may himself retain a barrister for that purpose. The barrister then does the in-court stuff and handles the more complex questions of law.
However, it didn’t actually specify which types of cases can be handled without going before a judge, or specifically what kinds of legal advice solicitors specialized in.
So what exactly does he give advice about? I thought I’d put this question to the Teeming Millions in England, or Billions, or Thousand Millions, or whatever you guys use over there.
Absolutely anything – from conveyancing a house to murder charges. It’s not that a solicitor doesn’t handle cases that will appear before a judge, but that when they do reach court, he retains a barrister to present them there.
Local “family” solicitors will cover all of the usual “bread and butter” areas: conveyancing, wills, probate, powers of attorney, estate planning. Solicitors in larger firms will specialise: torts, commercial, trusts, criminal, copyright etc.
solicitors do a wide variety of legal work, much of which doesn’t involve going near a courthouse. Barristers specialise in courtroom advocacy. Solicitors could (in the 1920s) represent their client in the Petty Sessional Court but for the Quarter Sessions or the Assizes they would not have rights of audience.
QC’s, (aka senior counsel, silk) are just barristers who have been given that particular appellation. They tend to be the creme de la creme. They get appointed in the bigger cases (serious crime, big money civil cases). They will only appear in the higher courts. They usually insist on receiving the assistance of a junior (ie non QC) barrister.
Princhester (a solicitor who has spent the last week instructing counsel in an appeal court)
I’d forgotten that’s your field, Princhester. Thanks for the answer.
Here are a couple of other questions:
[ul][li]What are the different uniforms, so to speak, worn in an Australain courtroom?[/li][li]Are there any differences between them and those worn in the United Kingdom?[/li][li]Do the courts in Scotland have the same uniforms as those in England?[/li][li]How different are the courtroom procedures among the Commonwealth nations?[/ul][/li]
Thanks in advance for your answers.
I’m not much use to you there, Monty. In Australia, generally counsel (barristers) wear a black robe and a black waistcoat over their suit. In the Queensland courts of record (middle and upper) they wear a wig. In the general Federal court, they wear the robe but not the wig. In the Federal Court’s corporate/insolvency jurisdiction there is no special dress (ie just a business suit). In the lower (magistrate’s or local) court likewise.
Senior counsel wear black silk robes. On ceremonial occasions (swearing in new judges for example) they wear a long wig.
I must say I don’t take much notice and the above may not be strictly accurate. Although I’ve practiced in the UK, I wasn’t in a position that involved going to court so I can’t tell you about that.
My general understanding is that courtroom procedures between UK and Australia are broadly comparable but slowly diverging.
[QUOTE=Monty]
Here are a couple of other questions:
[list][li]What are the different uniforms, so to speak, worn in an Australain courtroom?[/li][/QUOTE]
It gets pretty complex and pretty wanky. Different states in Australia have slightly different rules for courtroom attire. For example, in Victoria, barristers are allowed to wear their wig on the streets, on their way to court, whereas New South Wales barristers aren’t supposed to do that. The average-joe barristers are therefore carrying blue bags, while the silks (the QCs or SCs) carry red bags! The QCs are also entitled to silk robes and silk stockings, and I’ve noticed that their robes usually are slightly more ornate, with a rosette of some sort on the back.
All this complex stuff only applies to barristers, and only in the higher courts. A solicitor instructing a barrister will usually just wear a suit (though I think they’re technically entitled to wear a barrister-outfit without the wig), and a barrister in a lower court such as the Victorian Magistrates Court (theft of meat trays from the supermarket on upwards) will just wear a suit as well.
I’m not the most reliable source though - this isn’t really my area.
Thanks, both Princhester and Atticus Finch, for your answers. The only British jurisprudence I’ve witnessed was the Magistrate’s Court on Diego Garcia, B.I.O.T. The magistrate is the same person as the Governor’s Representative (the Governor is not resident on the island but rather in London). As the Representative is a Commander in the Royal Navy, there was supposedly some kind of legal legerdemain by which he is considered not to be acting in his Naval capacity for the period of the court. A funny incident at one hearing I attended was when an American Merchant Mariner refused to answer the Magistrate and said, “I claim my rights under the Fifth Amendment.”
Anyway, what exactly is Magistrate’s Court? The court sessions I witnessed struck me more as what the US Armed Forces calls Non-judicial Punishment.
there will be two (usually) magistrates ‘on the bench’, appointed Justices of the Peace under the Justices Of The Peace Act, 1361 (said to be the oldest law still in daily use anywhere in the world). They will be unpaid, except for expenses, and are drawn from the ranks of the Great and the Good in the county, thus meeting the requirement for ‘local justice, locally administered’. They are not legally qualified, and rely for advice on points of law from the Clerk To The Justices. They try what would in the US be called misdemeanours - although the difference between a felony and misdemeanour was abolished here in the 1960s - and are here called summary offences (because you get a ‘summons’ to attend the court). More serious crimes are committed for trial at the Crown Court, which replaced Quarter Sessions and Assizes in the 1970s.
The stipendiary magistrate, now known as a District Judge, may preside alone instead. He is paid and is a legal professional, a barrister or solicitor of at least 7 years standing. Most of these sit in London. Rumour says the Lord Chancellor’s Department would like these to largely replace the lay magistracy.
No judges are elected officials here, nor are they subject to ‘confirmation hearings’
“Bar:- partition [now largely nominal] at which the accused stood to face the court.
The Bar:- barristers collectively [because they are ‘called to the Bar’ when they are deemed qualified to begin practising]” - New Oxford Dictionary
The bar was also one of the differences between the common barrister and the Queen’s Counsel. A common barrister had to address the court while standing at the bar of the court; Q.C.s could argue from inside the bar, closer to the judge.
No, they’re not government counsel. They’re senior counsel, with significant experience at the bar. They can represent either side of a case, either Crown or defence. “Crown counsel” is one term for a prosecutor in some jurisdictions.
Q.C.s evolved from the early stages of the common law and originally were lawyers who represented the Crown. Technically, even today they hold an office under the Crown. At one time they needed permission from the Crown to represent a client in opposition to the Crown. However, that requirement is long since gone.
Thank you all very much for your informative answers.
If the terms are now “solicitor” and “barrister,” what if anything does “lawyer” or “attorney” mean with regard to English law, just sort of a catch-all phrase?
“Lawyer”, in Australia, is a generic term covering solicitors and barristers. In casual conversation it’s probably more closely associated with solicitors. At a party, if asked for his occupation, a solicitor might say “I’m a lawyer”. A barrister is almost certainly going to say “I’m a barrister”.
“Attorney” isn’t a common term except for official ministerial titles such as the Commonwealth and state Attorneys-General.
