Talk:Barrister

What is the honorific or title, etc. Esq?[edit]

In the US, lawyers get to put Esq. (for esquire) after their name. also, JD and LLD, stuff like that. I came to the barrister article because I wanted to know what a barrister would put after their name and I didn't see it. As noted below, BTW, this article is of poor quality and is highly repetitious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never known a barrister putting anything after their name in England and Wales unless they had some further qualification (eg QC) or wanted to show their academic qualifications (which anyone can do if they like) eg by saying BA or whatever. Francis Davey (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there is no honorific similar to the US usage of "Esq", either for barristers or solicitors in the UK. In fact, it has always rather mystified me how "Esq", originally the title of a knight-in-training (and therefore used only by males) came to be applied to lawyers, male and female, in the US. – ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"esq.", esquire, mister. All have the same meaning. "Mr. John Smith, esq." - redundant. Anyone can put "esq." after their name. Means nothing.

Traditionally, barristers would be known as John Smith Esq, rather than Mr John Smith. (Note Mr and Esq are never used together, only one or the other is used.) It was largely based on class distinction; the lower orders were Mr John Smith, the higher classes, from which barristers were inevitably drawn, were John Smith Esq. Most barristers keep their wigs in tins with their name on top and the form of the name on top of the tin is always, J. Smith Esq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.15.199 (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Ireland its typical for Barristers to use BL (Barrister-at-Law) after their name (if they are Junior Counsel) or SC (if they are Senior Counsel). This is only used in a professional context (e.g. letterheads or fee notes). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.242.83 (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Mister' or 'Mr.' is a derivation of 'Master', and 'Mrs.' one for 'Mistress'. For a young male child the form of address is 'Master' and for a girl 'Miss'. Esquire (Esq) is a courtesy title usually appended after the man's surname and I believe it was originally only applied to the gentry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.167 (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy[edit]

My problem with this article is that it misses the point. It confuses the definition of what a barrister is -- and how that differs from a solicitor -- and what in normal practice particlar barristers do (though there is no reason why they should). What is more, it never properly explains what the difference is.

The difference between a barrister and a solicitor is that a solicitor is an attorney -- which means they act in the place of their client -- and a barrister is a representative, which means they act on behalf of their client. The difference is an ancient one (its where the two professions came from) and is the only absolute difference between the two in England and Wales today (apart from professional bodies of course, though that may change).

This means that a solicitor can write letters to court, file claims, hold client money, sign contracts on behalf of a client and so on. They stand in the client's shoes. That is what an attorney is. A barrister cannot do any of those things. That is an absolute bar (if you will excuse the pun).

Now its also the case that practising barristers have automatic wide rights of audience that solicitors do not (though they can obtain them), although there is no reason in principle why the law society could not organise that they did. Its also true that most barristers spend a lot of time in court, but there are many barristers who do not. Many barristers have more paper based practices than many solicitors. That is not the difference in principle, its a difference in practice. Francis Davey 21:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First Section[edit]

I feel that the first section is not written very well and for the most part a murky repetition of what follows the TOC. I'm going to remove it but since I'm far from an expert on the subject, please correct me if I'm wrong. Impaciente 16:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the last section, the description of the situation in Quebec is quite misleading, what they call "avocats" (lawyers) means both barristers and solicitors (there is no distinction between the two). In fact, I believe about 90% of lawyers don't practice before the courts and only give advice. "Notaires" (civil law notaries), who all have the same university degree as lawyers, have exclusive tasks specified by law and a different professional association (called "Chambre des notaires").

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Neutrality^talk 02:23, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? So what' a barrister?[edit]

After reading this article, I, an American, still don't understand what a barrister is, other than what I already knew: a kind of lawyer (or attorney). Maybe you can take some ideas from the solicitor page.

I agree. Im American too, I came here to find out the differences between a barrister and an attorney. This article is incredibly confusing and seems to start from the supposition that you already have an "everyman" grounding in the type of common law which uses barristers. Many countries in the world, even ones based in English law, dont use barristers. And for those of us who live in those countries, youre going to have to explain more fundamentals to make this article worthwhile 2601:601:500:1EF0:D522:7DBF:1C55:F6AE (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a Nutshell[edit]

This page does drown in detail, but it makes sense. To my american 'colleague' (I am British) - all you really need to know about Barristers is that they handle the more serious crimes, are the only lawyers allowed to act in a crown court and are usually commisioned by a solicitor on behalf of a client.

Unfortunately that "all" is wrong (other lawyers have rights of audience in the Crown Court -- some solicitors for example). That is linked to "handling the more serious crimes", although that is a pretty misleading comment -- I handle no crimes at all if I can help it; when I do they are very minor. The detail is quite hopeless -- it looks like someone who has just done the Bar Course or a law student rote it -- long on detail, short in explanation.

In particular, it doesn't give any feel for what we (for I am one) do. If I have time I will try to rewrite.

Francis Davey 21:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Law Student[edit]

just started 2nd year of degree, found this page pretty useful. how "supportive" are my parents/bank manager going to have to be, and how "supportive" is my manager likely to be if i cant get much help from parents? i'm interested in commercial work, which isn't exactly the lowest paid area, but is highly competitive, and the risk is a big factor is possibly putting me off. was a struggle enough for my parents to send me to uni, what are the various sources of help (if any) for skint ambitious young students like me? any comments would be much appreciated

American friendly explanation?[edit]

Given the problems with the current explanation that American's seem to be having, perhaps you might take a look at this Faq from the Bar Association of New South Wales (Australia):

http://www.nswbar.asn.au/Public/aboutbarristers/index.htm

Is that any good? If so, what is good about it?

An analysis of the 'old boy' network in the Bar?[edit]

Thinking that you can get through the entirity of that article and not realise that to many people in the UK, the Bar is seen as being the exclusive province of white, middle class, publicly educated prats, who get pupilage from the contacts their daddies make for them. Also required is something pointing out that the costs of training for pupilage (in essence another year at uni based all on your own personal fianance) and the low chance of actually getting a pupilage are lowering applications from other, lower class backgrounds. Would do it myself, but as you can tell im pretty opinionated about this; i'll wait two weeks, and if no one else has, i'll put in my edits anyway and flag it for attention.

86.29.19.99 02:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty unenlightened comment. I am a fairly junior commercial barrister and I am not aware of anyone who has got a pupillage through personal contacts. Certainly none of the better sets would operate in this way. We may all be prats, but allegations of nepotism really should be supported by some facts.

In the most part, the pupillage application process is regulated by a clearing system (OLPAS) and has been for many years, in one form or another. The market for pupillage is extremely competitive. Chambers put a lot of energy into recruitment. The best candidates are extremely sought after. There is a very good reason for this. Good barristers bring in more work than they can do themselves, which leads to work being spread around chambers. Bad barristers are a liability. If clients are unimpressed, the whole of chambers will be tarred with the same brush. It is not in anyone's interests to allow sub-standard advocates in on account of contacts. In fact, barristers tend to be extremely "proper" about this. In any event, all barristers are self-employed. If we are rubbish, no-one will employ us. While certainly not perfect, the Bar is more a meritocracy than many other workplaces.

It is true that applicants need to get through the Bar Vocational Course before pupillage and that, in many cases, this is unfunded, representing a significant barrier to entry. Would-be solicitors attend a different course, the Legal Practitioners' Course, which also takes one year. The difference is that most training contract awards will cover the cost of the LPC, whereas pupillage awards may not. However, this is changing. Many non-criminal chambers will offer tax free awards which can be drawn down, in part, in the BVC year. This is unusual in criminal chambers simply because earnings tend to be much lower. Chambers operate as non-incorporated associations. Pupillage awards must therefore be funded directly from the pockets of the barristers who are already members. There are, however, a large number of scholarships available from the Inns, many of which cover more than just fees.

It is difficult to get a pupillage. This is because there are very very few jobs going, not because all the jobs go to relatives. There are only (apparently) 12,000 barristers in independent practice in the UK. I am not sure of exact numbers, but there are only a few hundred pupillages each year and not every pupil will be taken on as a tenant at a chambers. So in this sense, the financial investment in becoming a barrister is a significant risk. However, most of the better students on my BVC course did make it. Many had to try more than once and some had to take paralegal or other jobs to fund a year out to reapply. Those that didn't are doing fine now anyway. The training you receive along the way does give you very marketable skills.

______

As a barrister from a working class background - I used to work as a builder, went to a former Polytechnic and now practice as a commercial/common law barrister at a prominent set in the Temple - I would support the entry immediately above.

It would be foolish not to recognise that attending an excellent public school and Oxbridge college doesn't provide you with a great start for a career at the Bar, and that not a few tenants follow in the footsteps of parents. However, this isn't (as far as I can tell) due to any form nepotism. It is simply that such institutions provide first rate training for life at the Bar, and parents at the Bar the necessary funds and/or ambition in the first place, and so the rest of us may have to work that bit harder to reach the standard for ourselves.

The only point which might be made about restricted access is the difficulty in securing funding for the BVC, and whilst you can expect to run up considerable debts if (as I was) you are reliant on bank loans and part time jobs, for those brave enough to take the gamble it is possible. However, loans are available with repayment over 10 years or so, and almost all pupillages are now funded.

There is nowhere to hide in this job if you slip up - you cannot rely on 'Daddy's reputation' when addressing a jury or the Judge, or when cross examining a witness. Any 'prats' would very quickly find themselves without a practice to speak of. By the same process, those with real talent and skill will have plenty of opportunity to demonstrate it, and soon find themsleves in demand from clients.

I agree, the above does not chime with my own experience at all. True, there are a lot of problems with the way the Bar recruits, and it could be made easier in various ways so as to be less discriminatory, but it is in fact one of the easiest professions to get into on merit. I came to the bar in later life and find it has a much more transparent structure than any I have worked in before.

Consider the percentage of non-white, non-public school educated (I assume the original anonymous comment meant that) people in the bar. My own chambers has lots of non-whites, very few Oxbridge educated (I'm not sure who else) and so on.

I would be very interested to hear of any evidence of a recent pupillage being secured through nepotism. I have never seen it. Francis Davey 22:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

_______

I am an Australian barrister, and I agree too. Good connections will get you a good start, but once started, connections alone will not keep you in successful practice. If you're no good, then no matter who your father/mother is you will not go very far. However, our system is diferent to the UK system in that there are no restrictions on the number of pupils.

As a newly called Irish barrister, I agree with the points about meritocracy. There are no restrictions on the number of pupils in Ireland. There are no chambers either. It is a question of hanging in until the skills and contacts develop. Having family members in the right places is useful for getting the early experience. Under the Irish system many barristers of four to six years standing have no work to speak of. Other barristers who have more work than they can handle are often asked by solicitors to nominate suitable barristers when they are too busy to run a case. Virtually all practices are built up on these handovers until the solicitor starts instructing the barrister directly.

As a barrister of more than 7 years call, I thought the original poster had a reasonable point that none of the subsequent posters managed to address.

First, he was making a point about perception. Whatever the truth of the matter, this is how the Bar is seen by most in the UK. Anyone who claims otherwise is talking crap.

Secondly, the perception has a substantial basis in fact. Despite improvements in recent years, the Bar is overwhelmingly white, middle class, oxbridge-educated and male. The proportion of female barristers are improving to the point of parity at the junior end. The proportion of ethnic minorities remains fairly abysmal.

Third, his nepotism point was also misconstrued. In this day and age, it is virtually impossible to be a successful barrister without hard work and ability. But it would be equally false to claim that there is no nepotism at the bar whatsoever - all things being equal, the son or daughter of a High Court judge stands a better than average chance of securing pupillage. And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the reasons why that would be so.

Fourthly, although I agree that success at the Bar depends on ability, I wonder how genuinely meritocratic the Bar can claim to be given the obvious and formidable financial barriers that stand in the way of entry to the profession: lack of sufficient funding for pupillage, problems with junior tenants securing enough work to live on. Generally speaking, it is much easier making it through the early years of the Bar if you have a family that is able to offer financial support. With such substantial barriers, it's hardly surprising therefore that those who make it tend to come from backgrounds where family financial support is not problematic nor that many law students opt to become solicitors instead.

Newc0253 17:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the son or daughter of a High Court judge stands a better than average chance of securing pupillage'" Perhaps just a matter of genetics. The apple usually does not fall far from the tree. What is so wrong with relying upon the tried and true?

Proposal to move text[edit]

Hopefully there is general agreement that this article is now in much better shape that when earlier users found it. However I think this is limited to content. The problem is where does the content belong. There is much duplication between this Article and "Barristers in England and Wales", and, furthermore, this article dwells far more on the English and Welsh Bar than it does on the general features of the profession of barrister. Indeed general features may be few and far between, in which case the article should offer a brief comparative overview of the profession of barrister in different jurisdictions.

My proposal therefore is to move sections in relation to E&W to the "Barristers in England and Wales" article, and in so doing clean that article up. A few general paragraphs will be left in this Article, which would then focus on the various bars around the world. --Gazzetta 11:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Ariwara 21:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear Fat Red 12:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. JPF 22:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit,[edit]

This article is steadily improving since the section on E&W was moved, and with the addition of some of good material. It is still cluttered in some way, and I deduced that there were two many variations throughout the text (particulary for E&W, Scotland, Ireland and Australia). Explaining a variation is best done under its own heading, so as to allow for easier reading.

In this edit, a few points have been lost because the are extraneous, partly or wholly repetitive or (in one case) inaccurate. They may reappear in due course once this edit has been reviewed.

Some may feel that removing the references to Advocate through the text unfairly ignores the distinction. Perhaps a mention could go in the introduction, but the purpose of the article is to define the term and role of a "barrister". If an Advocate is a barrister in all but name then the distinction is best dealt with in its own section. I take a similar line in relation to other national traditions.

Finally I am not convinced that text about the systems in Quebec, the US and Spain belong in this article. They may be analogous but they do not represent a variation on the main theme. Instead they demonstrate an underlying theme of how the different roles of lawyer are carried on. I have not deleted the text so as to allow for further consideration. --217.16.87.168 10:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Distinctions Between Barrister and Solicitor[edit]

Personally, I feel this article lacks the basic distinctions between (well read section title)... The first para. of the article should be re-written to encompass this. Jonomacdrones 02:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It would also be helpful to set out some of the reasoning for having a split legal profession (which fused profession jurisdictions tend to look on as madness). I am happy to have a stab at it, but I know there have been some heated debates about the contents of this page before, so please, nobody shoot me if I do. Legis 16:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to put in a note that the essential difference (still true in my jurisdiction) which is clear and fundamental is that barristers aren't attorneys and solicitors are. Being an attorney is more expensive and can involve quite a bit of non-court time, which is why barristers exist -- to be specialist non-attorneys. As it happens, most barristers are then able to spend far more time in court and will understand court practice better than solicitors, which explains the practical difference between the professions. It really does make sense. Its far cheaper to pay me to go to court than a solicitor, because I don't have to maintain all the gubbins associated with attorneyhood (thankfully) but as a result I am much less useful to a member of the general public who doesn't know how to conduct litigation. Seems straightforward to me. All these remarks about specialisation are only half-truths or generalisations. Most of my colleagues in chambers are less specialist than most of the solicitors who instruct us -- nevertheless we spend more time on law and less on admin so can be more expert than them. Francis Davey 16:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Costume[edit]

Not the most important thing in the world, but the article could do with a section on court dress, or link to another article covering it Johnbod 16:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barristers[edit]

If you are a barrister do you have to join one of the Inns of court.

In England and Wales, the answer is yes. You have to be a member of one in order to be a barrister. Francis Davey 12:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to that, it is your Inn of Court that calls you to the Bar, at least it was in my day (1983) and I am pretty sure that's still the case. --ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria[edit]

Does the Nigeria stuff really belong in this article, or should it be in lawyer? Garth M 00:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea it should Babatunde Feranmi (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SC vs QC[edit]

Why was QC dropped in Australia? Perhaps this section can be expanded upon. Jachin 05:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the move towards republicanism in the 1990s, I believe. Garth M 10:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

What do people think of one of those WP:Infobox thingies for barristers? It could have:

Inn (with a little graphic thingie)
Year of call
Pupil supervisor
Pupils supervised
...

I am generally against infoboxes but the attraction here would be that the pupillage "genealogy" could be traced.Cutler 19:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate thought would be that, in the majority of cases, the pupil supervisor (even if known) and the pupils supervised (ditto) would fail WP:N and so would not be worth mentioning. Any exceptions can easily be mentioned in the article. Can you point to actual examples of "family trees" of notable pupilmasters and pupils? Bencherlite ^Talk 00:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the Barrister[edit]

I think the following paragraph is a little too simplistic:

"Barristers used to have a major role in trial preparation, including drafting pleadings and reviewing evidence. In modern times, it is relatively common for a barrister to only receive a "brief" from an instructing solicitor to represent a client at trial a day or two before the hearing."

While this may be true in simple criminal cases, it is by and large not true in major criminal cases and pretty much all civil cases. Barristers in those cases are involved at all stages - and indeed do draft letters before action, draft pleadings, advise on evidence etc. as well as appear in court for the advocacy work.--ukexpat (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most confusing sentence here[edit]

The article states: "A barrister is not an attorney and is forbidden, both by law and by professional rules, from conducting litigation."

Yet later on relates as to where the barrister is involved in litigation. If the intent is to convey the concept that the barrister does not control litigation but takes instruction from the solicitor it needs refurbishing to convey that intent.

I'm a lawyer myself, American, and would anticipate that anyone bobbing up and down in the courtroom is really "conducting" litigation. So if there is a more intricate meaning it requires further explication. LAWinans (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a specific meaning in English law. It covers activities such as filing applications and claims. I think "a barrister is not an attorney" is straightforward enough and makes the distinction clear, although its important to mention the prohibition on conducting litigation. This is nothing to do with taking instructions from a solicitor. A barrister need not do that (I have been involved in more than one case where I was instructed by the lay client directly). Having a solicitor is a matter of convenience only since it is useful to have an attorney at law around since many lay clients find that aspect of things hard to manage. Francis Davey (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more carefully at what you wrote, I can't see the apparent contradiction. Yes, barristers get involved with litigation, just like witnesses, experts, the parties, ushers, interpreters, court clerks and judges but none of them (other than the parties) are said to "conduct litigation". I think that is plain. Also the sentence before the one you cite does gloss "conducting litigation". Dare I say that a non-lawyer would understand what was said but because you come from a jurisdiction where the words "attorney" and "lawyer" are used interchangeably you find the difference hard to grasp? Francis Davey (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why include Nigerian scam info here?[edit]

It doesn't seem to be on subject. Or, if it is on subject, every country represented should have an example of scammers misrepresenting themselves as barristers.Scough1991 (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and have removed it. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barristers in fiction - remove?[edit]

Remove this section - its useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by U0000 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there barristers in civil law jurisdictions?[edit]

Why there is French barrister pictured? --79.111.100.241 (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction?[edit]

Is the following period correct? "This means that while the barrister speaks on the client's behalf in court, the barrister does so when instructed by a solicitor." --von Tamm (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyer description not entirely accurate.[edit]

Hi, I think the opening paragraphs need amendments. I would offer to do it but as I have a conflict of interest I have been advised to make a suggestion to see what other users feel.

The opening paragraph does not take into account the changes made in the Legal Services Act 2007. There are now more than two classes of lawyer. Legal Executives are also lawyers and have an increasing amount of responsibility (including becoming partners and judges) and so need to be mentioned to keep this accuarate. I'd welcome any (polite) feedback to work out how best to ensure that all lawyers are mentioned, so that the role of a Barrister, and how it differs, can be accurately portrayed.

A barrister is a member of one of the two classes of lawyer found in many common law jurisdictions with split legal professions. Barristers specialise in courtroom advocacy, drafting legal pleadings and giving expert legal opinions. They can be contrasted with solicitors — the other class of lawyer in split professions — who have more direct access with clients and who are in general office based. Barristers are rarely hired by clients directly but instead are retained (or instructed) by solicitors to act on behalf of clients.

The historical difference between the two professions—and the only essential difference in England and Wales today—is that a solicitor is an attorney, which means they can act in the place of their client for legal purposes (as in signing contracts) and may conduct litigation on their behalf by making applications to the court, writing letters in litigation to the client's opponent and so on. A barrister is not an attorney and is usually forbidden, either by law or professional rules or both, from "conducting" litigation. This means that while the barrister speaks on the client's behalf in court, he or she can only do so when instructed by a solicitor or certain other qualified professional clients, such as patent agents.

Thanks,

Hutchfish (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What change would you propose? Do remember that this article is meant to cover a multiplicity of jurisdictions, not just the UK. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Attorney' in Quebec[edit]

Is the Quebec section using the word 'attorney' correctly? Attorney is not synonymous with lawyer in Canadian English. Peter Grey (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

I have just checked with the Victorian Bar association and we do have Q.C.'s here in Victoria, Australia. The article seem's to indicate that they only exist in the Northern Territory

202.67.114.216 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Counsel[edit]

This word is mentioned several times but never adequately defined. I understand it refers collectively to the barrister(s) on a particular side in a case, e.g. "counsel for the defence", or when used by a solicitor talking to their client, "the barrister(s) who are representing or will represent you in court". IANAL (in any sense) so I would appreciate someone more savvy addressing this issue... Hairy Dude (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an easy thing to do. Counsel means, I think (and I am one!) someone acting in Court, under the instructions of a solicitor or lay client, but not employed by a solicitor or lay client.

Therefore, a barrister representing himself in court is still a barrister, but is certainly not 'appearing as counsel.' A solicitor advocate who has been instructed to conduct a case by another firm of solicitors is acting as 'counsel' even though not a barrister. 86.128.92.219 (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No way Jose[edit]

A barrister is a barrister and and advocate is an advocate. How many other times ot we have to know-to Wikipedia's USA bias. Let's talk English on here, not Ameringlish! Picknick99 (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed the merge, and I'm a South African. No American bias needed to realise that the two articles cover the same ground.Park3r (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worked on Differences Section[edit]

Writing that isn't clear makes me crazy, so I try to put in my two cents here and there, making sure referents are clear, links linked, etc. What I didn't do was read the entire article first, and look the talk page, and see that I had bitten off more than I could chew! I am a sociologist, not a lawyer, so please undo if appropriate; it certainly is in need of a full revision. Peacedance (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Barrister. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occupations (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations articles

{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory sentences in Barrister#United_States section[edit]

Note the following sentences:

Additionally, some state appellate courts require attorneys to obtain a separate certificate of admission to plead and practise in the appellate court.
Federal courts require specific admission to that court's bar to practise before it.
At the state appellate level and in Federal courts, there is generally no separate examination process, although some U.S. district courts require an examination on practices and procedures in their specific courts.

While I list these with numbered bullets the fact is that these three sentences are presented in exactly that order within a single paragraph. Here is the problem:

Sentence #1 says state appellate courts require a special certificate, but then Sentence #3 says "generally no [...] examination" is used. So how then is a "special certificate" obtained if not by qualifying by examination?

Sentence #2 says federal courts require attorneys to have specific admission, but again Sentence #3 says no exam is needed except for certain US District courts. How is "specific admission" acquired?

This needs to be explained and clarified. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 00:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Barrister. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain or break up the "South Asia" section?[edit]

I don't understand why three countries are combined under the subheading "South Asia". All other subsections are for individual countries, and those three countries (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) are independent since 50 or 70 years ago. They're even treated in separate paragraphs in that subsection, so why group them together at all?

And then there's a picture with the caption "Dr Allamah Muhammad Iqbal is regarded as one of the greatest South Asian barristers." But South Asia didn't make him a barrister, Pakistan or Bangladesh or India did.

Maybe there's just some info missing. I've no expertise on this topic. I know they have shared history pre-1970 or 1950. Do they continue to share post independence case law? If so, please mention it. Do barristers in one country have access to plead cases in the other two? If so, please mention it. etc. etc. But if they are three separate countries and jurisdictions, then grouping them together just makes no sense.

I know they have historical ties, but by that criteria we could just lump 75% of those per-country subsections into a "Previously British Empire" subsection. Great floors (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada[edit]

legal counsel in a Canadian jurisdiction here. I really had to fix the "barrister-at-law" bit by first removing this somewhat redundant descriptor (unlike an attorney-in-fact vs. attorney-at-law, one can't really be a barrister of anything else other than law), and then describing things more accurately. I'm not from Quebec though so I'll leave that section alone for any avocats to improve. Merci. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archenok (talk • contribs) 02:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions please for related term[edit]

I need a word with similar meaning in British English at Talk:Internal Market Bill#Jurist to describe a group that includes a very senior judge and a number of eminent barristers. The word jurist is not acceptable. Any ideas? (there, please). --[[User:John John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with lead and article's scope[edit]

The article's lead sentence currently reads: "A barrister is a type of lawyer in common law jurisdictions." But the article then proceeds to discuss a great many civil law jurisdictions in addition to common law ones. This is a strange incongruity. I think something, either the lead sentence or the inclusion of civil law countries, needs to be changed. Any thoughts or comments? White Whirlwind 19:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a British Empire-centric article?[edit]

Why isn't this article defined as British Empire-centric? It's not even really Eurocentric since it has no application to much of Europe. It's deceiving to the prospective reader since it really only applies to former British colonies and their evolutions. It's not applicable to U.S. law. Why not identify it as such at the outset? Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term Barrister is not used in the U.S. or indeed many jurisdictions. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To how ever considering[edit]

Hello my name is Michael Hall and I am going to marry Sandra @Hall very soon and my email is @ 2600:6C60:4DF0:12B0:9C02:8433:44:10F2 (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my name is Michael Hall and I am going to marry Sandra my email 2600:6C60:4DF0:12B0:9C02:8433:44:10F2 (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]