The first annual general meeting of the Solicitors Association of Higher Courts Advocates took place in June this year.

At that time there were about 275 solicitor advocates, of whom 150 were members of the association.

Since then the numbers have increased to only about 300.

Of these, fewer than 100 have civil rights of audience.The modest number of solicitor advocates and the insignificant growth in numbers is disappointing, bearing in mind the vast effort which was needed for solicitors to gain higher rights of audience.

This is partly attributable to the extremely high standards required before solicitors can qualify as advocates, and partly because of the prevailing culture which is still relatively hostile to solicitor advocates.The obvious concern is that solicitor advocates are perceived as second rate.

There undoubtedly exists the notion that 'counsel' is far superior in knowledge or intellect to his or her apparently intellectually indifferent sibling solicitor.

This notion is perpetuated in the very language of address which court etiquette requires.

solicito rs are addressed as mere 'friends', whilst counsel are addressed as 'learned friends'.

They are also not allowed to wear wigs, often perceived by lay clients as the badge of office of the advocate.This notion of 'second best' must be challenged by solicitors at all levels and from all specialities.

Solicitors must establish themselves as a primary profession in their own right, rather than a profession which hitherto has been secondary to the Bar.

While this has occurred in many specialities, it is not yet the case in higher court litigation, whether civil or criminal.Further difficulties are caused to solicitor advocates by the mysticism and reverence undoubtedly afforded to advocates in the present judicial system.

There is a prevailing view that good orators win cases and that the court is like a playing field where the best team or best orator wins.

It is as if the Bar constitutes the 'Carling Premiership' and solicitors are relegated to the 'Endsleigh League' .Put crudely this view is 'buy the most expensive player', and many leading counsel appear to be briefed accordingly.

The advocate instructed on the 'Carling Premiership' basis is an orator, whose skills are akin to the Shakespearean actor, and who is able to marshal the skills of an Oscar performance in support of the client's case.

This perception does not easily give ground to the solicitor advocate, traditionally perceived to be unable to cope with the onslaught of a 'Cantona'.The philosophy which reveres the orator advocate in this way has a fundamental misunderstanding of the role and the skills of advocacy.

There is no doubt about the importance of the Oscar winning performance, but maybe only one case in several hundred is won by such a performance and these tend to be jury trials.

Courts decide cases on merits, having regard to issues of law and justice, and not on the performance of the advocates appearing before them.

This proposition is self-evident, yet it seems to be universally forgotten.The majority of cases are won by thorough, careful and consistent preparation over many months and years.

All these cases are prepared by solicitors.

If solicitors win cases by preparation, why do they not present such cases in court? Is the reason the ill-conceived perception or illusion that cases are won or lost by excellent or poor oratorial skills? Is it because of overhead loading and the custom that solicitors have to be constantly available to their clients during the working day ('the instant potato philosophy')? Or is it because solicitors lack intellectual courage, and are not prepared to commit the preparation time and commitment that advocacy requires?It seems to me that the real reason is the fundamental misconception that oratorial skills win cases.

In perpetuating this misconception (which they have hitherto done) solicitors devalue themselves and their profession.The preparation work which wins cases is the careful consideration and drafting of witness statements, chronologies, lists of issues, skeleton arguments and lists of questions for examination and cross-examination.

All this work can be accomplished on paper by every skilled solicitor who knows the case intimately and has a good knowledge of the relevant law and procedure.Once it is understood that advocates do not have to be orators the solicitor advocate will be a potent force in this country's judicial system and the profession will change accordingly.