If I’ve spent the last 10 years writing wills, is there any legal restriction stopping me from defending someone against a murder charge tomorrow?
It may depend on what state you practice in, but I’m not aware of any such limitations. You obviously passed the bar, however I’m not sure why someone would hire such an inexperienced trial lawyer if they were being charged with murder,
Stranger
Not a legal restriction per se. But you have an ethical obligation to know what you’re doing. (and you wouldn’t get appointed by a court to defend a murder case if you haven’t practiced criminal law before.)
Here’s the Washington Rule, and the first comment to the rule (based on the model rules, so similar to other states)
A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation
requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the
representation.
[Adopted effective September 1, 1985; Amended effective September 1, 2006.]
Comment
Legal Knowledge and Skill
[1] In determining whether a lawyer employs the requisite knowledge and skill in a particular
matter, relevant factors include the relative complexity and specialized nature of the matter, the
lawyer’s general experience, the lawyer’s training and experience in the field in question, the
preparation and study the lawyer is able to give the matter and whether it is feasible to refer the
matter to, or associate or consult with, a lawyer of established competence in the field in
question. In many instances, the required proficiency is that of a general practitioner. Expertise in
a particular field of law may be required in some circumstances.
sorry about the formatting.
RULE 1
But no, the license is for almost everything. In most states you cannot even get officially recognized as a specialist in an area, and have to be careful not to advertise yourself as such. Some states do allow specialization in certain areas of the law.
Stranger
To represent someone at the patent office, an attorney needs to be registered with the USPTO, meaning they have passed the patent registration exam. And to even be able to take the exam, you need at least an undergraduate degree in certain engineering or scientific disciplines.
Hence the disclaimers in TV ads by lawyers chasing pots of gold from product liability lawsuits.
Melvin Bellii was infamous for representing Jack Ruby in the murder trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. Belli had only done civil cases and definitely nothing as serious as murder.
Belli tried an untested and unusual defense under Texas law. So Ruby was convicted. Experts said that a standard Texas criminal lawyer could have gotten Ruby a short sentence.
Belli served pro bono for the publicity. Ruby got what he paid for. Other lawyers stepped in for the appeal but Ruby died before there was a new trial.
Sure, 60 years ago but I doubt Texas bar rules have changed in this regard.
Maybe I’m mistaken but in England don’t you have to pass tests to even be a trial lawyer rather than a lawyer who deals with trusts or real estate etc.?
They have two different types of lawyers, barristers and solicitors. Barristers are the trial lawyers. I believe there is some overlap. Our UK or Commonweath friends can probably explain it better.
Canada does not distinguish between the two.
This is what Illinois wants me to put at the bottom of my solo firm website.
- The Supreme Court of Illinois does not recognize certifications of specialties in the practice of law and the certificate, award or recognition is not a requirement to practice law in Illinois.
- The information on this website is for general purposes only and should not be interpreted to indicate a certain result will occur in your specific legal situation.
- The information on this website is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Indeed, English law distinguishes between barristers and solicitors (and a whole range of other more narrowly specialised legal professions, such as conveyancers, chartered legal executives and costs lawyers, but those are relatively recent innovations). To put it shortly, barristers are the ones who appear before the higher courts; solicitors are your go-to advisors for non-litigious legal advice or drafting services and appear before lower courts. As a member of the public, you wouldn’t hire a barrister directly; you’d have a solicitor working for you before the issue reaches the litigation stage, and if litigation becomes necessary, it’s the solicitor who will hire (“instruct”) the barrister.
This is how it works traditionally, at least. There’s a lot in flux here in the last two decades or so: Solicitors can do extra training to acquire “higher rights” that allow them to appear before higher courts; the public can access barristers directly, etc. So the two professions are getting closer to each other, but they’re still considered to be separate professions, and it’s highly unusual (though not legally impossible, to my knowledge) to be both a barrister and a solicitor at the same time.
Both barristers and solicitors are regulated legal professions; you need to get training and pass examinations to qualify for them, and you’re subject to disciplinary powers of a regulator to ensure you behave properly (but separate regulators for the two). You don’t need a law degree to qualify, though, and many highly successful practitioners have an academic background in some other discipline.
For in-house work in a legal department, employers will typically expect a qualification as either a barrister or a solicitor, and treat the two as equivalent. I’m a solicitor but work exclusively in-house, so I don’t really have clients other than my employer.
Quebec has a profession of Notary. They are a kind of minor league lawyer who deal exclusively with wills and real estate transactions. There are also commissioners for oaths who do what in the US are called Notaries (public).
They’re more than that, and are required to have more academic training than avocats. They are highly specialized, but I wouldn’t say they are minor-league.
Ignorance fought. The only contexts I knew of Notaries were real estate transactions and wills. So I thought of them as carrying out some limited functions of lawyers.
They’re part of the civil law tradition:
The extra training that they get in Quebec is either a certificate or an LL.M. in notarial practice, after completeing an LL.B., specialising in non-contentious transactions. They then have to qualify with the Chambre des notaires.
Avocats just need the LL.B., and then qualification iwth the Barreau du Québec.
Not in a strict sense like in England, but we still keep the concepts. In my province, all lawyers are formally barristers and solicitors, and in practice, many lawyers specialise in one or the other areas. I would say I’m primarily a barrister. I do some opinion work, in the tradition of “counsel’s opinion”, but I would never draft a will or do a real estate closing.
My dad almost never went to court, specializing in large commercial real estate deals for 40 years. He had a set of robes but hadn’t worn them since the 1960s. I think my sister used them for a Halloween costume sometime around 1980.
The discussion of robes came up once at a local bar dinner, and one of the solicitor-types said, “I can’t remember the last time I wore my robes for a non-sexual purpose.”
He was joking.
I think.