Report comment

I hired two barristers to work in my criminal practice. Neither were able to deal with paperwork of a solicitor's practice. They are two very different "callings". In jurisdictions where the professions are merged the standard of advocacy drops through the floor and lack of court experience due to the work being so thinly spread results in pleas to charges which might have been defensible.

Why merge? If it's about movement between professions, then address that issue, but there's no public benefit argument here because specialisation makes both professions concentrate on what they do best for their clients.

I'm qualified and have worked in a "fused profession" and in the UK and I saw the difference. Separate professions offer a pool of skilled professionals who solicitors can access which doesn't exist in other jurisdictions. It makes for a very fluid and fast moving legal environment with access to good advice and representation which is not available in other jurisdictions.

It's not just "not broken", it vastly superior to the fused systems where the public is stuck with the lawyer they hired who is likely to be a jack of all trades, master of none.