Report comment

While generally I would not disagree that Bar standards for delivery of advocacy in court are better, certainly more cohesive than that provided by solicitors; who, when it comes to advocacy do not nest in packs and have the same reciprocal support offered by chambers.

Interestingly, when the Courts and Legal Services Act (1990) first came in I found there was great encouragement from the crown court bench to get solicitors on their feet.

This remained the state of play for many years, although solicitors remained reluctant to stake their claim. The magnetic poles shifted diametrically only when severe cuts to legal aid were introduced. All of a sudden ranks closed, the judiciary became politely impatient, occasionally cold, certainly less willing to assist the fledging cohort to their new stomping ground. At this time many solicitors opting to collar both the litigation fee and the advocacy fee on a plethora of pleas and routine trials took the plunge, the economic effect was to severely undermine the criminal bar.

How can any of us be properly objective about the economic impact on development and assessment of integrated advocacy in the higher courts?

I have to say that I have witnessed over the years serious gaffs by barristers in court that are politely air-brushed by the judge or managed by opposing counsel. These gaffs include not being prepared, not knowing the brief and not having a handle on the facts. With the delegation of handling at stages of a case in chambers this tends to be a bigger problem for the bar than for solicitors, who are far more likely to know the facts of the case in great detail. There are also times when barristers have got the law wrong and it is then that polite society stage manages a brief adjournment to get it right. Unfortunately, if it is a solicitor getting it wrong he/she is now far more likely to be held up to public ridicule. And it has to be said that there are some barristers where it is not a question of having a bad day, but simply, for all the great talents they may otherwise have, they are not good advocates, either not naturals at thinking on their feet,speaking without a script, or making themselves clear in plain English. In other words they are no more perfect than their solicitor counter-parts. It is just that the system is far more forgiving when economic realities create a dog eats dog situation.