4 ms·

What do barristers do. The author seems to skip the entire solicitor component of the legal profession.

by voisin 4y ago

fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
It’s just a set of observations about legal realism using the generic term. You really expected someone to write everything a legal professional does?
- voisin 4y ago
  My point is that the vast majority of what lawyers do has nothing to do with judges. It has to do with drafting contracts and interpreting legislation and legal precedent. Talking about good lawyers sometimes being able to communicate and coming prepared is limited to a small subset of barrister work. [edit for clarity]: I overstated the first sentence. I should have said that the vast majority of what lawyers do does not involve appearing in court before a judge. The ultimate goal of any legal work is certainly to ensure it would satisfy a judge should a conflict arise.
  - fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
    Incorrect, especially the statement that “the vast majority of what lawyers do has nothing to do with judges. It has to do with drafting contracts and interpreting legislation and legal precedent.” I think you’re confusing arbitration or litigation as the aspects of lawyering which involve judges. In fact, just about all actions undertaken by lawyers are with an eventual audience of a courtroom and a judge in mind. Yes, you review contracts, yes, you interpret legislation: In order to achieve some goal, with an eye toward how it might be interpreted by a judge or opposing counsel. A lawyer that is not proactive about future defense is not fulfilling their duty as counsel and that necessarily means thinking about and considering judges and the courtroom, to one degree or another.
    - voisin 4y ago
      I think we are writing past each other. The article talks about lawyers being good communicators and being prepared, the implication being for court to argue in front of a judge. This is what I am saying is a tiny, infinitesimally small portion of the legal profession as a whole. You changed the topic to be “with an eventual audience of a courtroom and a judge in mind”, which I don’t disagree with. This needs to be the consideration, even though the vast majority of work never ends up having that audience. But this has nothing to do with being a good communicator that shows up prepared, as per the article.
      - fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
        No, there was no change in topic, merely a correction to an incorrect absolute statement: “the vast majority of what lawyers do has nothing to do with judges.” To say it has nothing to do with judges is the overstep. Those who practice know that the end-state of almost all legal analysis is “what would the judge say?” and it’s laughable to think that the prototypical lawyer doesn’t actively consider how their work will be interpreted by legal authorities. As a layperson, you saw the commentary about communication and preparedness and you thought this was an article about professional decorum and skillsets. It is not: the author saved the punchline for the end, and tied his observations about the practice of law, jurisdictional incongruities, and legal culture under the deft umbrella of legal realism and its affects on the above. How does it affect or undermine lawyers’ interpretation of the law? How do judges weigh the various influences that impact their decision making? And, all this together, what kind of legal culture is created from the variance of these actors and factors? But hey, let’s make this fun. You list an area of law that does not interact in any way with judges or jurisprudence, and I’ll respond appropriately.
        voisin 4y ago
        Ok, I’ve added a clarifying statement. The word “nothing” in my post overstated the case based on my reading of the post with respect to communication and preparation for court.
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    If people would never need to go before a judge for any type of action, there would be no need for a lawyer. A contract, when presumably violated, gets adjudicated by a judge. Everything a lawyer does is judge centric. Ultimately, the law is meaningless without a judge to decide its meaning.
    - voisin 4y ago
      I never said never. The point was that in the grand scheme of a legal career, it is exceedingly rare except for litigators or barristers, who are a minority of lawyers.
johndhi 4y ago
I'm a USA lawyer so not hyper familiar (we have no such distinction here) but a barrister is licensed to put on a funny hat or wig and actually speak to/interact with a judge. If you're only a solicitor (you can be both) I believe you're limited to interacting with your client and describing the law for them. I believe this distinction exists on the premise that barristers, being more independent from their clients, will be more honest and fair when interacting with the judge.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  See the comment on my post -- apparently in India, any lawyer can go to court. But some just choose not to.
mlyle 4y ago
> The author seems to skip the entire solicitor component of the legal profession. I think this is covered. Ultimately, everything comes down to court, but he said: "and can write and say things to maximise the odds of the judge doing what you want him to do." That is-- they know how a court is likely to look at things, and know how to construct contracts and advise clients so that if a dispute ever emerges they are likely to prevail... or rather, that it will be so obvious that they will prevail that no one will even bother with litigation.

What do barristers do. The author seems to skip the entire solicitor component of the legal profession.

by voisin 4y ago

What do barristers do. The author seems to skip the entire solicitor component of the legal profession.

It’s just a set of observations about legal realism using the generic term. You really expected someone to write everything a legal professional does?

voisin 4y ago
My point is that the vast majority of what lawyers do has nothing to do with judges. It has to do with drafting contracts and interpreting legislation and legal precedent. Talking about good lawyers sometimes being able to communicate and coming prepared is limited to a small subset of barrister work. [edit for clarity]: I overstated the first sentence. I should have said that the vast majority of what lawyers do does not involve appearing in court before a judge. The ultimate goal of any legal work is certainly to ensure it would satisfy a judge should a conflict arise.
- fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
  Incorrect, especially the statement that “the vast majority of what lawyers do has nothing to do with judges. It has to do with drafting contracts and interpreting legislation and legal precedent.” I think you’re confusing arbitration or litigation as the aspects of lawyering which involve judges. In fact, just about all actions undertaken by lawyers are with an eventual audience of a courtroom and a judge in mind. Yes, you review contracts, yes, you interpret legislation: In order to achieve some goal, with an eye toward how it might be interpreted by a judge or opposing counsel. A lawyer that is not proactive about future defense is not fulfilling their duty as counsel and that necessarily means thinking about and considering judges and the courtroom, to one degree or another.
  - voisin 4y ago
    I think we are writing past each other. The article talks about lawyers being good communicators and being prepared, the implication being for court to argue in front of a judge. This is what I am saying is a tiny, infinitesimally small portion of the legal profession as a whole. You changed the topic to be “with an eventual audience of a courtroom and a judge in mind”, which I don’t disagree with. This needs to be the consideration, even though the vast majority of work never ends up having that audience. But this has nothing to do with being a good communicator that shows up prepared, as per the article.
    - fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
      No, there was no change in topic, merely a correction to an incorrect absolute statement: “the vast majority of what lawyers do has nothing to do with judges.” To say it has nothing to do with judges is the overstep. Those who practice know that the end-state of almost all legal analysis is “what would the judge say?” and it’s laughable to think that the prototypical lawyer doesn’t actively consider how their work will be interpreted by legal authorities. As a layperson, you saw the commentary about communication and preparedness and you thought this was an article about professional decorum and skillsets. It is not: the author saved the punchline for the end, and tied his observations about the practice of law, jurisdictional incongruities, and legal culture under the deft umbrella of legal realism and its affects on the above. How does it affect or undermine lawyers’ interpretation of the law? How do judges weigh the various influences that impact their decision making? And, all this together, what kind of legal culture is created from the variance of these actors and factors? But hey, let’s make this fun. You list an area of law that does not interact in any way with judges or jurisprudence, and I’ll respond appropriately.
      - voisin 4y ago
        Ok, I’ve added a clarifying statement. The word “nothing” in my post overstated the case based on my reading of the post with respect to communication and preparation for court.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  If people would never need to go before a judge for any type of action, there would be no need for a lawyer. A contract, when presumably violated, gets adjudicated by a judge. Everything a lawyer does is judge centric. Ultimately, the law is meaningless without a judge to decide its meaning.
  - voisin 4y ago
    I never said never. The point was that in the grand scheme of a legal career, it is exceedingly rare except for litigators or barristers, who are a minority of lawyers.

johndhi 4y ago

I'm a USA lawyer so not hyper familiar (we have no such distinction here) but a barrister is licensed to put on a funny hat or wig and actually speak to/interact with a judge. If you're only a solicitor (you can be both) I believe you're limited to interacting with your client and describing the law for them. I believe this distinction exists on the premise that barristers, being more independent from their clients, will be more honest and fair when interacting with the judge.

AlbertCory 4y ago
See the comment on my post -- apparently in India, any lawyer can go to court. But some just choose not to.

mlyle 4y ago

> The author seems to skip the entire solicitor component of the legal profession. I think this is covered. Ultimately, everything comes down to court, but he said: "and can write and say things to maximise the odds of the judge doing what you want him to do." That is-- they know how a court is likely to look at things, and know how to construct contracts and advise clients so that if a dispute ever emerges they are likely to prevail... or rather, that it will be so obvious that they will prevail that no one will even bother with litigation.