The Role and Differences of Barristers and Solicitors: A Comparative Analysis, Prove d'esame di Inglese Giuridico

Scarica The Role and Differences of Barristers and Solicitors: A Comparative Analysis e più Prove d'esame in PDF di Inglese Giuridico solo su Docsity!

1. THE LEGAL PROFESSION

Units 1A / 1B

1. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND BARRISTER

[fonte: https://www.thelawyerportal.com/free-guides/difference-between-solicitor-and-barrister/]

What is the difference between solicitor and barrister professions? If you are unsure of the difference between a barrister and solicitor, or the qualifications and training processes to be completed for either career, then you can find out more on this page.

What is a Barrister? A barrister is a qualified legal professional who offers specialist advice whilst representing, advocating and defending its clients in court or at a tribunal. Many barristers specialise in one area of the law, although some may have a more general practice covering a variety of areas.

What is a Solicitor? A solicitor is a qualified legal practitioner who is responsible for preparing legal documentation in the run up to and during a court case. A solicitor provides specialist legal advice on contentious and non-contentious work to their clients on a variety of areas of law.

The Difference Between Solicitor and Barrister Training

Solicitor Training To become a solicitor, you must complete a vocational 1-2 year course called the Legal Practice Course (LPC) which is designed to prepare you for solicitor practice. Following this, you must complete a two-year training contract , which is practical legal work experience (typically carried out in a law firm) which must be completed in order to qualify as a solicitor. Your training contract allows you to explore different areas of law, you will spend terms in different ‘seats’.

Barrister Training To qualify as a barrister, on the other hand, you need to complete the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC). After this, fledgling barristers will do a 1-year pupillage, which usually takes place in chambers. Pupillage involves shadowing a barrister before getting involved in the practical work of chambers.

The Difference Between Solicitor and Barrister Work Patterns

Most solicitors are employed by a law firm or commercial organisation as an ‘in-house’ solicitor. As an employee, they will receive a regular income, holiday pay, sick pay, benefits etc.This obviously offers a lot of job security.

Barristers, on the other hand, tend to be self-employed and affiliated with a chambers which they share with other self-employed barristers. With self-employment comes greater uncertainty in relation to income and during any holidays or sick leave, a barrister will not be paid.

As barristers become more senior and can charge higher fees, this becomes less of an issue, but for barristers just starting out, this can be a real challenge. Barristers, however, are not always self-employed. Some barristers are employed ‘in-house’ at law firms and large commercial organisations (such as the Government Legal Service), which takes away the uncertainty associated with being self-employed and brings with it regular income and benefits.

2. THE LANGUAGE

OF CONTRACT LAW

Units 3A / 3B

[fonte: https://barbriqlts.com/common-law-vs-civil-law-an-introduction-to-the-different-legal-systems/]

April 1, 2019 / By Victoria Cromwell

The legal systems of different countries around the world typically follow either the common law or the civil law, or, in some cases, a combination of the two.

Broadly speaking, a common law system is based on the concept of judicial precedent. Judges take an active role in shaping the law here, since the decisions a court makes are then used as a precedent for future cases. Whilst common law systems have laws that are created by legislators, it is up to judges to rely on precedents set by previous courts to interpret those laws and apply them to individual cases.

In certain common law countries, courts (such as the Supreme Court of the United States) have the ability to strike down laws that were passed by legislators if those laws are deemed unconstitutional in violation of federal law. By contrast, in the United Kingdom, the concept of parliamentary sovereignty means that legislation can only be amended or revoked by Parliament, not the courts.

2. COMMON LAW vs. CIVIL LAW. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE DIFFERENTE LEGAL SYSTEMS

William the Conqueror was the first King to unite these accumulated customs and traditions and create courts and a legal system common to the whole country, hence the term “common law”. The common law system developed alongside the courts of equity which devised remedies to legal issues based on fairness and equality to counter the sometimes rigid common law. The decisions of these courts were recorded and published, and it therefore became possible for the judiciary to look at previous decisions (precedents) and apply them to the case at hand.

How We Got Here Both civil law and common law systems originated in Europe. Prior to 1066 and the Norman Conquest, the United Kingdom had no coherent legal system, and was instead made up of customs that applied to different parts of the country.

Judicial precedent therefore works on the basis of the principle of stare decisis , a Latin phrase which means “let the decision stand”. The common law now has certain rules. For example, only certain parts of a judgment becoming binding precedent, and only if handed down by a superior court.

By contrast, civil law can be traced back to Roman law. The use of a codified system here allows for primary sources of law to be recorded in legal codes , which are intended to cover the law in a particular area.

The legal system of the United Kingdom is classified as a common law system , similar to the U.S., although there are many codified laws in the form of statutes. This is in contrast to our European neighbours such as France, Germany, Italy, and Spain , where the legal systems are entirely codified and therefore operate on a civil law basis.

[fonte: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jul/08/landmarks-in-law-mclibel-and-the-longest-trial-in- british-legal-history ]

July 8, 2019 / By Catherine Baksi

In the 1990s, the actions of a small group of environmentalists gave rise to what became the longest-running trial in British legal history.

McDonald’s Corporation versus Steel & Morris [1997], dubbed “McLibel” , followed a libel action brought by US fast food giant McDonald’s against Helen Steel, David Morris and three others over a leaflet they had distributed criticising the company’s practices. The three others apologised and were not sued, but Steel and Morris fought the case in a David versus Goliath battle. In a 762-page judgment, Mr Justice Bell, who sat without a jury, rejected the claims in the leaflet that McDonald’s was to blame for starvation in developing countries or had used lethal poisons to destroy vast areas of rainforest. But he found that the company had “pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which their food did not match”, exploited children in its advertising, and helped to “depress wages in the catering trade”.

3. LANDMARKS IN LAW: MCLIBEL AND THE LONGEST TRIAL

IN BRITISH LEGAL HISTORY

The judge ruled that the pair had libelled the corporation and ordered them to pay £60,000 damages, reduced on appeal to £40,000. They refused to pay, and McDonald’s has not pursued them for the money. The case was branded a PR disaster for McDonald’s , and became the subject of a documentary by Franny Armstrong and Ken Loach.

Steele was a part-time bar-worker earning a maximum of £65 a week, and Morris was an unemployed postman who was responsible for the day-to-day care of his son, then aged four.At the time, McDonald’s had worldwide sales of about $30billions.

Steel remembers that at the start of the initial case they were given some basic legal advice. “That advice was ‘don’t do it – you’re on a hiding to nothing’, because even if we had plenty of resources, it was up to us to prove the truth of everything that was said in the leaflet ,” she says.

That was a huge task for Steel, who did not write any of the pamphlet and was not even in the group when it was written. “When all you are doing is handing out leaflets it’s a tall order to then have to become experts,” she says. “ The case dominated our lives from 1993 until the verdict in 1996. It was a full-time job around the clock .When we got home from court we had to prepare for the next day.

“ It was exhausting, but there was an important principle at stake: wealthy companies should not be able to silence people and control what they say about their practices , which are then not subject to scrutiny.”

Before their case, she says, McDonald’s had threatened to sue other organisations for libel, which had then all backed down and apologised. “ The company created a climate of fear of a libel writ so its business practices went unchallenged, which is not healthy in a democratic society ,” she says. But she adds: “If I’d have known then what was involved, I’m not sure that I’d have gone ahead.”

Mark Stephens, now a partner at law firm Howard Kennedy, was one of the band of lawyers who helped the pair without charge throughout the case. He says the lack of legal aid resulted in a gross inequality of arms and was also a total false economy. A case that should have lasted three weeks went on for months, preventing other cases from being heard.

The case, he says, was “an abject lesson in how not to do it” from the point of view of McDonald’s. “ Bringing the case in the early days of the internet meant that many more people came to know what was in the leaflets. The whole thing was madness .”