Despite the fact that the professions of a barrister and an attorney have always been considered separate ones, there is a certain tendency in the modern UK policy to make these professions merge into one. The result of the change might be dramatic, and modern political scientists and layers are debating on the reasonability of such a step. Taking into consideration the established structure of the legal profession in the United Kingdom, these debates have all the grounds to be held, for the problem is rather controversial.
Such is the structure of the legal profession that an attorney and a barrister have their own sphere of business, and they are concerned with absolutely different matters.
Thus, an attorney is a person that is supposed to consult people on certain questions concerning the law, its peculiarities as for the given situation. The conflicts he solves, if these could be called conflicts, are the ones that do not conflict with the laws established. An attorney is a consultant on the questions of the civil case.
The process starts by placing a document in the hands of the client so that they can in a way create their own customized legal documents using templates provided by the attorney, law firm, or outside vendor. (Council of Europe 46).
This indicates that an attorney is someone who deals with the paperwork most and supports , he clients not in the court, but provides the necessary documents for them, giving consultations and providing help in solving the problems before they get to the court.
It is quite different with the barrister, who presents the case in the court and helps his clients, the people accused, to escape the unjust and unfair punishment that has been imposed on them by mistake.
Although, as Mitchel states, The traditional position is that a solicitor selects – or briefs – a barrister for his or her client, who will appear on behalf of the client in the courts. Barristers also carry out non-advocatory work as they advise solicitors on legal points, although a lot of their time is actually spent in a court (187),
a barrister mostly deals with the court cases. Dealing with the paperwork is something that barrister seldom come to do. It is a common tradition to separate the legal work on defending an accused in these two ways. Although the job of a barrister and the one of an attorney can collide at times, providing them with the common area to fulfill their duties in, as a rule, they act separately.
It has been recently suggested that these two professions should be fused into a single one, allowing the advocate both to give consultations and get busy with the paper work, and defend the cases in the court as well.
This might sound reasonable, for it is often that the customer needs the barrister and the attorney in one. A person who has provided one with legal advice can also present the case in court, especially if the latter is the result of the former. This sounds quite just and reasonable.
However, there are certain doubts concerning the results of such changes. Some lawyers and political scientists think that this might cause certain damage to the legal system and mix the present state of affairs into confusion. The change may drag the personal interest of the lawyers, and that might result in multiple breach of law.
Thus, the result of the fusion might be both positive and discouraging. The differences in the job of a barrister and an attorney will require the futudvocates concentrating on the problems they have never dealt with due to the peculiarities of their job.
The other pint to consider will be that this step will require a change in studying the law. The change of the legal structure will inevitably drag the change of the educational structure, at least in the field of law and political science. That must take a great deal of time for people to get accustomed, too.
There is also the idea that, psychologically, a person can either be a kind of a spokesman, which a barrister actually is, with his ability to speak persuasively and clearly; or a man can be a paper-pusher, someone to deal with the documentary and the theoretical part of the law. Making a person be the both is practically impossible, from the viewpoint of psychology and common sense.
This very idea makes me think that the suggestion o the two professions fusing into one would take more time and forces than it has been planned. People have to take it into account. In my opinion, the fusion of these two professions is not quite reasonable yet, since the basis for this change has not been created.
The existence of two separate branches of legal professions gas been maintaining in England for centuries, along with the idea of precedent and the other traditions that have crept even in the legal; system. That is why I heavily doubt that England, as the country of traditions and appreciation for the old custom s will make such a revolutionary step and change the basis of its legal system. Although these are only the legal bodies to decide, I think this is not the problem to solve in haste.
Works Cited
Council of Europe. The Independence of Lawyers: Proceedings. Council of Europe. 2003. Print.
Mitchel, Andrew, Minel Dadhania. As Level Law. Oxford: Routledge. 2003. Print.