Seeking a Barrister

pirelli

I am looking for a barrister to represent me in industrial dispute ( Not four courts).

I would rather avoid using a solicitor. I am aware that traditionally solicitors counsel the barrister although in this scenario the matter does not require a solicitor, In this instance I do not want a solicitor nor the extra costs they bring. Is it appropriate I could liaise with a barrister and pay them for briefing and to represent me for two days.Would a barrister do this and where would I advertise for one.

McCrack

If you want a barrister to represent you rather than a solicitor you must first engage a solicitor to brief the barrister unless you come within the ambit of Direct Professional Access which I dont think you do.

dermot_sheehan

In contentious matters it is unethical for a barrister to act for a person unless instructed by a solicitor, although we can give opinions on legal questions if asked by a member of one of the professional bodies listed on the direct professional access page on www.lawlibrary.ie

pirelli

Will the solicitor have to attend court with the barrister.

etymon

yes although many rarely bother!!!
in my experience, anyway. Stuck in front of a High Court Judge the other day, last matter to be heard, room clearly missing one solicitor, praying she wouldn't ask which barrister was without an instructing solicitor!!

McCrack

The solicitor must be in court with his barrister, essential if it's a hearing. In other less important matters such as motions a trainee or clerk from the office will usually attend.

dermot_sheehan

McCrack wrote: »

The solicitor must be in court with his barrister, essential if it's a hearing. In other less important matters such as motions a trainee or clerk from the office will usually attend.

Solicitors don't need to attend in the District Court since Order 6 only requires that we be instructed and not attended.

For motions in the Circuit and the High you get away with not being attended if you're not the moving party (i.e. you are resisting the motion) as you don't need to hand up papers

nuac

Pirelli, a barrister expects to be given a brief with all relevant - but only relevant - documentation, and to have a consultation with the relevant - and only the relevant - witnesses.

The solicitor should inter alia ensure that all relevant doucments are available and that all necessary letters and notices erc have been issued prior to hearing.

Any case likely to go on in any court needs considerable preparation. . Barristers will advise on the preparation of a case, but do not do the actual preparatory work.

McCrack

Gabhain Order 6 only sets out who has right of audience in the DC. I don't know of any rule/order or practice direction allowing Counsel be unattended at hearing in the DC. My understanding is once a matter is running the instructing solicitor (or his assistant) must be present.

Jo King

The District Court rules provide a right of audience to a barrister instructed by a solicitor. The Circuit Court and Superior Court rules give audience to a barrister attended by a solicitor(other than for an adjournment. This is taken to mean that barristers do not need to be attended in the District Courtt. It is common in the Dublin DIstrict court for barristers to be unattended. It is almost unknown for barristers to be attended in legal aid criminal cases in the Dublin District Court. Outside Dublin, District Court judges do not like dealing with unattended barristers nad make life difficult for them. A DJ was judicially reviewed recently for refusing to hear an unattended barrister.

focusing

The answer to your question "Would a barrister do this" is "no".

Either get a solicitor who is confident enough to do the advocacy themselves or get a good deal on fees because the solicitor won't have to attend the hearing with the barrister, and an just send someone else from the office.

pirelli

focusing wrote: »

The answer to your question "Would a barrister do this" is "no".

Either get a solicitor who is confident enough to do the advocacy themselves or get a good deal on fees because the solicitor won't have to attend the hearing with the barrister, and an just send someone else from the office.

In regard to that answer "quoted" it has already been mentioned that the barrister must be instructed by a solicitor....

Are you suggesting that I can ask a barrister to take instructions from an office secretary..etc . That might be doing the rules less justice than simply allowing the Barrister to use his/her own professional judgment. I assume the person must have some sort of a qualification?

For sake of the argument can I ask a solicitor to contact a barrister only and pass them onto an acquaintance of mine (a law student at Griffith college) who will then instruct the barrister at the court hearing.

Jo King

focusing wrote: »

The answer to your question "Would a barrister do this" is "no".

There are solicitors who will, for a relatively small fee, instruct a barrister to appear in the District Court or industrial tribunal, without the solicitor himself or his staff attending. Many junior barristers are glad to accept such briefs. It is often less costly for the client than having a solicitor on his own do the work. A junior barrister may be willing to accept a fixed fee, whereas most solicitors will charge by the hour. Solicitors usually have higher overheads than barristers and must achieve a greater income per hour to make a profit.

dats_right

Barristers are not accustomed to dealing with clients in the same way solicitors are. By this I mean barristers are accustomed to often meeting the clients for the first time on the morning of a case, always with the case fully prepared for them and running through the salient facts with the client and their view of the case, etc. They are however not used to having to deal with clients directly over the course of several weeks, months, or in some cases years and often being hounded by client's telephone calls everytime the client gets the urge to pester the solicitor or when something needs to be clarified. Nor do barristers have the capacity (owing to lack of office facilities) or for that matter the inclination to carry out the essential function of running files in the same way solicitors do. Nor do barristers hold client money or incur outlay/disbursements on behalf of clients.

For all of these reasons and for many more, the relationship of solicitor and barrister are essential seperate roles and functions. To clients on the day of a court hearing it might seem as though the barrister is doing all the work and the solicitor isn't doing a whole lot, but the reality is that the solicitor has done the vast bulk of the work to that point (which the client doesn't really see) and the barrister steps in at the end and does all the highly visual work.

It must also be remembered that even in countries where the professions are merged e.g. the U.S. in reality their are specialist trial attornies who are supported by non-trial attornies in the course of litigation. So the bottom line is that in 99.99% of cases there needs to be both advocate and support lawyer and the roles are usually mutually exclusive.

Tom Young

pirelli wrote: »

For sake of the argument can I ask a solicitor to contact a barrister only and pass them onto an acquaintance of mine (a law student at Griffith college) who will then instruct the barrister at the court hearing.

The answer is no. The person instructing must be on the roll of solicitors.

nuac

Good post Dats Right.

As a practising solicitor of some experience I have frequently appeared in CC and a few times in High COurt dealing with type of work in which I have specialised, but in the general run of things the present solicitor/barrister arrangement works well.

Some barristers do not realise all the work involved in bringing a case to court.

I believe in the US there are some firms that specialise in liasing with witnesses,notifying them of changes in court listings Scope for such an agency here.

impr0v

Pirelli, if you think it's a relatively straightforward matter (and by that I mean it won't require a team to work on it, rather than that it is uncomplicated) and you want to do it with the minimum of cost you're probably better off finding out what law firm does what you want done the best, and getting a solicitor from that firm to do the whole lot (www.legal500.com isn't a bad place to start).

A good solicitor that works solely in that field will get acquainted with the matter much quicker; a barrister that you contact randomly, or even on a general recommendation, won't have the same specialist knowledge and the barristers that are competent in any field will cost you. Big firm representation will also cost you but if it is a straightforward matter it shouldn't require a lot of hours.

pirelli

nuac wrote: »

Good post Dats Right.

As a practising solicitor of some experience I have frequently appeared in CC and a few times in High COurt dealing with type of work in which I have specialised, but in the general run of things the present solicitor/barrister arrangement works well.

Some barristers do not realise all the work involved in bringing a case to court.

I believe in the US there are some firms that specialise in liasing with witnesses,notifying them of changes in court listings Scope for such an agency here.

Interesting idea, Thanks for that nuac.

maidhc

impr0v wrote: »

Big firm representation will also cost you but if it is a straightforward matter it shouldn't require a lot of hours.

Are you aware of the difference in fees charged by big firms and smaller practitioners?

If it is an employment law matter then any good litigation solicitor will know the law backwards, it is bread and butter stuff. Big firms and their fees make sense for M&A stuff, but that is about it.

focusing

Though they often send clerk or legal exec to take notes at the hearing, which keeps the costs down.

Victor

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0525/1224271089003.html

Court clarifies rights of barristers

THE HIGH Court has clarified that barristers have the right of audience in District Court cases where instructed but not attended by a solicitor.

The clarification was stated in a judgment of Mr Justice John Hedigan who held that a man remanded in custody had been unlawfully detained after District Court Judge Patricia McNamara refused to hear an application for bail because his barrister was not attended by a solicitor.

As a result of Judge McNamara’s decision, lawyers representing Andrea Heinullan, a Moldovan national with an address at Victoria Avenue, Bray, Co Wicklow, and Lithuanian man Leomous Jurijs, Putland Road, Bray, brought inquiries under Article 40 of the Constitution.

The lawyers claimed that their clients’ detention at Cloverhill Prison was unlawful.

They had been before Bray District Court earlier this month, on charges relating to an incident with a knife in Bray.

At the High Court, Colman Fitzgerald SC, for Mr Heinullan, argued that Judge McNamara’s refusal to hear counsel, on the sole basis that he was not attended, was unlawful and violated his client’s right to legal representation and his right to apply for bail.

The State had argued that Mr Heinullan’s detention was lawful on grounds including that he was at large from Midlands Prison.

Mr Jurijs’s Article 40 proceedings were not contested by the State.

The court heard that both men were arrested and detained at Bray Garda station.

They later spoke with their solicitor John Neville and were taken to Bray District Court, having been charged with several offences.

Mr Neville was unable to attend Bray District Court because another client was being brought to Dún Laoghaire District Court at the same time.

Mr Neville instructed a barrister to apply for bail and for legal aid.

When the matters came before Judge McNamara, she refused to hear their barrister, Eoin Gallagher. Judge McNamara said Mr Gallagher was not attended by his instructing solicitor and she remanded both men in custody for a week.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Hedigan said that there was some uncertainty concerning the right of a barrister to appear where instructed but not attended by a firm of solicitors.

However he was glad of the opportunity to clarify this matter for the benefit of District Court judges and for the legal profession.

The judge, who remarked that he was indebted to the chairman of the Bar Council, Michael Collins SC, for clarification in the matter, said that instructed but unattended barristers “have a right of audience in the District Court by virtue of their call to the bar by the Chief Justice of Ireland”.

Mr Justice Hedigan added: “It was by virtue of the failure to recognise this right to be heard that he was obliged to hold that the order to detain Mr Heinullan was unlawful and that he was unlawfully detained.”