Report comment

Isn't this whole qualification thing a little out of context and 'title-grabbing'. For some reason (notwithstanding the shorter training period) the Bar is seen as superior (I'm sure some of us have had a client say to us in Court as a qualified Solicitor - are you hoping to become a Barrister one day?).

In some jurisdictions you are a Barrister and Solicitor but the practical reality is what you actually are and do on a daily basis for the day job. If you want to exercise Higher Court Rights - specialise in that, do a course if necessary or module (the Bar requires certain advocacy experience/ qualification and so does the SRA in terms of its award). All of this hopping seems absolutely pointless or in some cases having started out wanting to be a Barrister, they had to (woe is me) become a Solicitor and then go full circle and cross qualify over when suitably qualified and there was a reduced, negligible or non-existent requirement for any additional training (I for example would likely be required to do some form of pupillage even if a reduced amount). As with the number of solicitors - the number has increased vastly - there's only so much room in a constrained profession.

I'm sure many a reader has encountered the 'non-practising' Barrister at some point operating as a paralegal only to have to be reminded, ironically by a Solicitor, the limitations on utilising such titles as per Bar Council Guidance at the time. Again, this air of superiority, noting that a PG.Dip in legal practice doesn’t afford ‘non practising’ solicitor status by comparison.

If you do work as a Solicitor, identify with that and if you do work associated with advocacy/ niche opinion on the strange and wonderful identify as a Barrister / Solicitor Advocate at your leisure (if suitably qualified as such). To give an example I have seen those who are solicitor-advocates never use the designation and just stick with Solicitor. I for one, in my working practices have no desire or interest to conduct rights of audience in the higher courts of this country (it is irrelevant to my work type).

People dual qualifying isn't new or innovative - in terms of career progression someone plays the game of politics and applies for whatever branding they need to move forward and promote themselves.

It’s safe to say that the professions have developed in such a way that both could in theory do each others respective roles (taking the issue of qualifications/ training etc. in a broad sense out of the way). You are as good at your job as your preparation is – is not one of the key concepts of advocacy that of preparation? The same is true of any transactions in terms of work as a Solicitor – if you put your mind to most things, the odds are you can accomplish them.

I think I'm with Lionel Blackman (poster below) that with the state of the system at the moment, the dual approach perhaps doesn't serve both well - Solicitor-advocates take traditional Barrister work and direct access / rights to conduct litigation takes traditional Solicitor work as an example. It’s a brand war with the other legal professionals trying to take their wedge i.e. chartered institute of legal executives, costs lawyers, conveyancing executives etc. as well.

Just provide the global brand to all with accreditations and authorisation to undertake work types - keep the 'regulators' busy policing who is doing what, not what they are called. If you do real estate - you best be up on your AML etc.

I’d be surprised if it happened in terms of fusing but could see for example a Solicitor and Barrister designation where current PC holders would transfer their rights over i.e. those with rights to conduct litigation can do so, those with HCR could do that etc. – I think there are too many old guard at the Bar however who would be objectionable at such a merger.

As David Carrod says below 'good ones get the work, bad ones not so much...'