united-kingdom lawyer civil-procedure comparative-law arbitration
In English civil trial practice when does a barrister become involved?
<p>In U.S. civil trial practice, the same legal professional, an attorney, or firm of legal professionals, usually handles a case from first client contact through trial and often appeals (if any) as well.</p>

<p>But, in English law, the roles of attorneys in the U.S. are filled by more than one kind of legal professional and there is a distinction between barristers, who are legal professionals who mostly handle trial practice, and solicitors, who are legal professionals who do other kinds of legal work. I am generally familiar with the routes by which one enters each profession.</p>

<p>It isn't clear to me, however, how the lines are drawn between the two professions in the context of civil litigation.</p>

<p>For example, suppose that you have a medium sized business (e.g. 100 employees and several business locations with no in house counsel) with a regular outside solicitor or firm of solicitors that it employs.</p>

<p>Suppose that business gets into a serious business dispute with another business, e.g. a joint venture gone bad with related accounting and trademark issues involving hundreds of thousands to million of pounds in controversy economically. (The example is from a case I handled in the U.S. allowing me to compare it, but any serious civil dispute could do. I limit the question to serious civil disputes because I understand that solicitors can handle civil litigation in some minor civil litigation.)</p>

<p>At what point in time is there a transition from a solicitor to a barrister? </p>

<p>When would a client start with a barrister in the first place? </p>

<p>What kind of legal professional (barrister or solicitor) would represent a client in an arbitration or mediation proceeding in which no court case has been opened?</p>

<p>Would a medium sized business in the example above that gets into lawsuits once every year or two typically have a regular barrister (or firm of barristers) that they would use, or would this choice usually be made on a case by case basis?</p>

<p>Also, please feel to correct any of my assumptions if they are incorrect.</p>

<p>Barristers are advocates, and their other roles fall out of that core role. I think of it this way: your solicitor takes care of your legal risk; your barrister is the 'big gun' you bring in for specific important legal advice and to represent you in person.</p>

<p>I'll give you my experience from the perspective of working in a large government agency. For us, 'barrister' often equates to 'Queen's Counsel' (now called 'Senior Counsel'), which is a particularly senior barrister. </p>

<p>I am also speaking from Australia. We have the same split profession as the UK, but there are probably differences.</p>

<p>You generally don't stop using a solicitor and start using a barrister. Rather, you have a solicitor the whole way through and then you engage a barrister through your solicitor.</p>

<p>You can engage a barrister directly, e.g. if you have in-house counsel, but it is not common to do so. Even if you have in-house counsel, you will usually engage more specialised external solicitors to handle litigation.</p>

<p>The barrister's role is generally to (1) provide advice on specific issues (after the solicitors have sifted the evidence and provided a brief to the barrister) including advising on your prospects in particular litigation and (2) represent you in court i.e. write submissions and speak to the court.</p>

<p>It is not uncommon to have a barristers represent you in proceedings other than a trial (if you have the financial resources to afford a barrister). For example, a barrister may represent you in mediation or may accompany you to an examination by some regulatory authority. (Furthermore, a regulatory authority may even hire a barrister to question you, since barristers are often good at that based on their in-court role; or you and the party you are having a dispute with might appoint a barrister as the arbitrator or mediator.)</p>

<p>You may have a barrister you prefer to use; more likely, however, your solicitor would know barristers and would recommend an appropriate one. Barristers are specialised so you would use a different barrister for a tax dispute, contractual dispute, employee dispute, etc. An organisation large enough to sustain constant legal disputes would have a number of barristers that it would go to as and when they were needed, on the basis of their particular skills and availability.</p>

<p>There is no such thing as a firm of barristers. Each barrister is independent. A barrister's office will be in 'chambers', which is an organisation that leases office space and hires clerks to manage member barristers' business. But the barristers in a chambers are not in business together as members of a firm of solicitors are. Barristers are proud of their independence, and they all want to be appointed as judges so they have to appear impartial.</p>

<p>To further illustrate how you might use a barrister: sometimes you get legal advice from a barrister and you cannot read the advice. You can see the words but it's gibberish. Your solicitor will interpret it for you.</p>
