A barrister is not an attorney and is usually forbidden, either by law or professional rules or both, from "conducting" litigation. This means that while the barrister speaks on the client's behalf in court, the barrister does so when instructed by a solicitor.


So, this is like ~ Those who can do, and those who can't . . . are just barristers?

I'm gonna ask Archie Leach about this. Oh. Wait. He was just a barrister, too.

As I understand it, a Solicitor is a more general legal representative that is hired directly by the client to oversee a case. A Barrister has a more specific expertise in a particular aspect of the law and is retained by a Solicitor as appropriate to actually represent the case in court ...

A Barrister usually has very little direct contact with the client. A Solicitor usually doesn't engage in a courtroom (although this has apparently been changing over the years) ...

In the US, the two functions are mushed together in the form of an Attorney ...

At least, that's what a quick bit of interweb research tells me. I'm sure KM will happily correct any errors ;-)

I don't doubt we'll all be corrected. But happily?

Mmmm, happily, I'll just have to guess.

.
I haven't been over here for a while but I see you haven't lost your touch.
.

Welcome back!

km

I thought that ignore this user would make the user entirely invisible. Alas, it ain't so. Oh well . . . good enough.

He may not have lost his touch, but he's hemorrhaging audience. The number of people who have hit the "Ignore this user" button next to his name is growing. Pretty soon, he'll be talking to himse... oh yeah. What else is new?

A quite impressive 50 per cent there - went up from two to three... although they all started reading 'em and chatting again in my premature 'This is great' thread.

km