In the latest instalment of a continuing series, we offer advice on the issues that face solicitor-advocates

In the light of recent - but limited and fairly universally condemned - outbursts of judicial indignation concerning the use of solicitor-advocates, it is timely to consider some of the reasons that are still being given for the apparent failure of some wholeheartedly to embrace the use of solicitors in this role.

Readers may recall the disquiet that came from Mr Justice Lightman while delivering a lecture at Sheffield University last April.

He deplored numerous changes within the legal profession over the 32 years since his career began, but made particularly harsh criticism of 'the total service law firm' and, in particular, the increasing tendency of solicitors to act as advocates.

He is not alone.

Many of us have probably experienced carefully prepared reasons for not seizing this opportunity, often from our own firms.

The following questions are concerned with the use of in-house solicitor-advocates in commercial civil practice (at all hearings including trials).

They briefly examine and attempt to quash some of the more common myths surrounding use of in-house advocates in circumstances where resort to the bar was once automatic.

Q Using counsel is cheaper, isn't it?

A Frequently, no.

In deciding whether to instruct counsel or an in-house solicitor-advocate it is essential that a proper comparison is made.

Solicitor-advocates who are involved in the preparation of cases in which they appear are likely to require much less preparation time than a barrister, who all too frequently comes to the matter without previous involvement.

The key is to ensure that fee-earners at the correct level are involved at each stage of preparation - an existing and commonplace management issue.

In these circumstances, the costs of instructing counsel and sending a junior fee-earner to attend are all avoided.

In short, consider the full cost of not using properly experienced and competent in-house advocates where they are available.

Frequently, the apparent discrepancy disappears or becomes immaterial.

In some cases, it will undoubtedly remain more cost effective to instruct counsel.

Sending a solicitor-advocate to a formal hearing at a distant venue with a local bar will always be difficult to justify, but this is not the position in relation to mainstream work in the local court that is the bulk of work carried out by most practitioners.

Q Barristers have greater expertise, don't they?

A The answer to this is a firm 'not necessarily'.

Without seeking to decry the abilities of many practitioners at the bar, we solicitors who understand legal issues and are able clearly to explain them to the client can surely do the same for a judge? This is of course the essence of the advocate's task in civil courts (and elsewhere).

The mysterious 'art of advocacy' if it ever were relevant, is much less so now.

The new regime, within which we all labour, makes quite involved hearings much more accessible to less experienced advocates.

Skeleton arguments, the use of witness statements, and the wholesale sweeping away of many technical rules means most hearings, including trials, deal more simply with the facts and the legal consequences of those facts - the important stuff.

Of course experience helps, and there will be matters which involve issues of great complexity and value or are otherwise so important as to justify using senior counsel.

However, this does not apply to most hearings, and we won't get experience sitting in the office while someone else does the work at court.

It must follow that, with appropriate training, thought and effort, solicitor-advocates can offer skills at least equal to the majority of counsel for the majority of hearings.

Q Do clients want this?

A You bet they do.

The role of a solicitor has changed out of all recognition in the past 25 years.

It will probably change as much again over the next 25.

The market will make us embrace the role of advocate for many reasons.

The predominant one is perhaps: What credible argument can be raised for not offering in-house advocacy services in firms that want to be perceived as taking litigation seriously? Good supplementary questions are: How do you answer clients who point out that firm A offers such a service but your firm does not? Why, all other things being equal, should clients continue to use your firm?

There are no satisfactory answers to these questions other than to provide the service.

It is an additional offering, so why wouldn't clients want us to offer it? When a sizeable number of firms do, and that will be soon, it will become an expected part of the service that no firm can afford to be without.

Q Distinctions of court dress and forms of address are problems that won't go away, aren't they?

A Be patient.

We are (probably) nearly there.

After some prevarication, consultation on this issue is nearing completion.

The impression is that there will be uniformity.

Wigs and gowns will probably go in the civil courts.

The technical rule changes also help a lot, and not having to wear, let's face it, a thoroughly anachronistic form of dress will help even further.

Not having a sartorial distinction between two advocates appearing before the same court has to be beneficial and makes the whole process more user friendly.

The clever money also appears to be on uniformity of address as well - surely a reform that is well overdue.

Q The judges are being difficult, aren't they?

A No, they aren't.

Inevitably, a few will be as difficult about this issue as they are difficult about a whole range of other issues.

The substantial majority of judges deal in an entirely courteous and proper manner with well prepared, suitably experienced solicitor-advocates who are patently able to deal with the task in hand.

Virtually every aspect of the system is against any other approach.

In any event, amid much talk of career judges, it seems inevitable that, in the not-too-distant future, the judiciary will have a somewhat different profile than it does now.

More practising solicitor-advocates must mean more solicitor-judges, which should remove even the perception of less favourable treatment.

In short, it seems likely that the next three to five years will be an important period in the evolution of this area of practice.

Get the training, get the experience and in five years' time these questions are likely to be irrelevant.

One more thing - having to appear in person rather than sit in the office while someone else appears, works wonders for the overall approach to this area of practice.

In short, appearing before a difficult court on an important matter concentrates the mind wonderfully.

This column was prepared by the Solicitors' Association of Higher Court Advocates.

For details of SAHCA or for a membership application form, contact Sandra Dawson, tel: 020 7837 0069.

E-mail your advocacy questions to: sandra@admin4u.org.uk