Barrister etiquette

mikemac1

Just some realy quick questions, can't find an answer anywhere for Ireland

Been watching a few legal shows, Silk on BBC was one

So in Ireland:

• Do briefs arrive with ribbons? Red for criminal defence, white for prosection. I forget what the civil case ribbon colour was. Or is this a TV thing?
• Do you generally meet the client and the solicitor for a conference to discuss strategy or do you only meet the morning of the trial? I also read Dublin barristers want to meet at the law library, shows they are independent and the solicitor must go to them. Or does it not matter?
• I know Irish barristers don't work in chambers but do court staff call ye Sir and Miss? Or maybe this is just a British tradition that I'm seeing on TV
• Lastly, as I understand the wig and gown are not compulsory. But then I googled around and Judge Carney insists on it. So do you have to wear them or not. Is it just not the done thing to opt out or are young and new barristers changing things?

Thanks
Might seem trivial questions, I'm just interested to know
And I have searched boards and googled but I'm not finding answers

RandolphEsq

mikemac1 wrote: »

[*] Do you generally meet the client and the solicitor for a conference to discuss strategy or do you only meet the morning of the trial? I also read Dublin barristers want to meet at the law library, shows they are independent and the solicitor must go to them. Or does it not matter?

The barristers usually would meet a client in advance, in criminal law anyway, as a barrister in a criminal matter is required when the charges are more serious so he will need all the information possible.

mikemac1 wrote: »

[*]Lastly, as I understand the wig and gown are not compulsory. But then I googled around and Judge Carney insists on it. So do you have to wear them or not. Is it just not the done thing to opt out or are young and new barristers changing things?

Ah it's optional, no obligation any more.

ResearchWill

mikemac1 wrote: »

Just some realy quick questions, can't find an answer anywhere for Ireland

Been watching a few legal shows, Silk on BBC was one

So in Ireland:

• Do briefs arrive with ribbons? Red for criminal defence, white for prosection. I forget what the civil case ribbon colour was. Or is this a TV thing?
• Do you generally meet the client and the solicitor for a conference to discuss strategy or do you only meet the morning of the trial? I also read Dublin barristers want to meet at the law library, shows they are independent and the solicitor must go to them. Or does it not matter?
• I know Irish barristers don't work in chambers but do court staff call ye Sir and Miss? Or maybe this is just a British tradition that I'm seeing on TV
• Lastly, as I understand the wig and gown are not compulsory. But then I googled around and Judge Carney insists on it. So do you have to wear them or not. Is it just not the done thing to opt out or are young and new barristers changing things?

Thanks
Might seem trivial questions, I'm just interested to know
And I have searched boards and googled but I'm not finding answers

1. Never got a brief with any type of ribbon, maybe some old firms still send out briefs that way, but doubt it, possible it still happens in England.
2. This depends on the case, it is best to arrange at least one consultation, before trial, in fact on more difficult cases it's best to arrange consultation even before decision to take a case is taken, but it is not always possible, some case the first time you meet client is the morning of the trial, but to be honest in some cases that's an advantage. Meeting in law library is more to do with barrister trying to fit in meeting between court hours. Most meetings I have had take place before 10, between 1 to 2 and after 5, not much use trying to arrange a 1 hour meeting at lunch time and having to travel an hour each way to get to it.
3. As I work on a local circuit mostly, in informal settings its usually first names, in formal situation in court it's mr. Surname. If a barrister appears in a new court it's advisable to introduce yourself to the court clerk or registrar. Then it's Mr. This or Ms. That.
4 The gown, tabs and a dark suit are still compulsory, the wig is optional, in most courts now the wig has all but disappeared, for barristers and judges. Some courts would frown on a barrister without wig, but in reality not really an issue. I for one wear the wig.

NoQuarter

So in Ireland:

• Do briefs arrive with ribbons? Red for criminal defence, white for prosection. I forget what the civil case ribbon colour was. Or is this a TV thing?

No they usually arrive in a bound booklet in an envelope. If it arrived in a ribbon it would be able to be read by all as there is no chambers system in Ireland so briefs when sent are usually sent by post. (or DX)

• Do you generally meet the client and the solicitor for a conference to discuss strategy or do you only meet the morning of the trial? I also read Dublin barristers want to meet at the law library, shows they are independent and the solicitor must go to them. Or does it not matter?

Usually always in court. Ive never really looked into the reasoning of it too much though.

• I know Irish barristers don't work in chambers but do court staff call ye Sir and Miss? Or maybe this is just a British tradition that I'm seeing on TV

Not over here!

• Lastly, as I understand the wig and gown are not compulsory. But then I googled around and Judge Carney insists on it. So do you have to wear them or not. Is it just not the done thing to opt out or are young and new barristers changing things?

Still worn in criminal proceedings mostly, less so in civil. What we were told is "if the judge is wearing a wig, think about wearing one". But as you said, not at all compulsory.

mikemac1

Cool, thanks for all the swift responses

johnnyskeleton

It's a pink ribbon for defence, not red. The story goes in England that one young clerk was told by the senior clerk that if I call him Joe, you call him Mr bloggs, if i call him mr bloggs, you call him sir, and if i call him sir, you don't call him anything at all.

johnnyskeleton

NoQuarter wrote: »

No they usually arrive in a bound booklet in an envelope.

Lol.

Procrastastudy

Is there any truth to the statement that barristers don't shake hands, as to do so with the opposing side in court, would create an air of familiarity and upset the client.

Or, as is frequently the case, am I having my leg pulled again?

mikemac1

Good question GCD

Also I'm 99.9% sure that "my right honourable friend" talk doesn't happen in Ireland but can you confirm that?

GeorgeOrwell

I think barristers call each other their "learned friend" rather than "Right Honourable friend." The latter would suggest the barrister was a member of the Privy Council.

In the UK, MPs call each other "honourable friend/member" and if they're in the Privy Council it's "right honourable friend." If they're in the Privy Council and a barrister, they're "right honourable and learned friend." I think that if the MP has been an officer in the Armed Forces, they're "Right Honourable and Gallant Member."

NoQuarter

It's "my friend". Use of "my learned friend" would be reserved for situations where your not so learned friend has made a nice little error in law and you are being sarcastic.

GCDLawstudent

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Is there any truth to the statement that barristers don't shake hands, as to do so with the opposing side in court, would create an air of familiarity and upset the client.

Or, as is frequently the case, am I having my leg pulled again?

Most barristers won't shake hands in front of clients for obvious enough reasons.

Some Senior members won't shake hands with you anywhere, not out of rudeness but out of a sense of tradition. Many an awkward moment can be avoided by not even offering your hand first to a more senior barrister.

Procrastastudy

Its was actually a devil in a bar after a Irish Mace round who shook my hand and then quickly apoligised. Once he realised I wasn't also deviling and a lowly law student it was fine. Because I'm older I think I got mistook. Of course then I opened my mouth...

I think he must have a rather traditionalist master.

Procrastastudy

I've been told barristers will sometime refer to the opposition by name in the lower courts as a courtesy in helping get someone name known. In mooting, for what thats worth as information to you, learned is only used when pointing out some one is wrong. Usually 'the learned trial judge' or the 'learned judge in the court below' as most moots are based on appeals.

Just another random fact of which you are probably aware - Judges here are generally referred to as Judge, although we have a couple of lecturers that insist on referring to Mr Justice Clark as 'his Lordship'. I believe that is somewhat out dated but still technically correct.

Imhof Tank

Deleted User wrote: »

Most barristers won't shake hands in front of clients for obvious enough reasons.

Some Senior members won't shake hands with you anywhere, not out of rudeness but out of a sense of tradition. Many an awkward moment can be avoided by not even offering your hand first to a more senior barrister.

I thought the idea was that the purpose of offering your hand for a handshake was to show the other guy that you are unarmed and make sure he is unarmed - and this is unnecessary between Barristers who are such honourable chaps?

In fact it would be an insult to offer your outstreched hand, implying that your colleague might possibly be armed.

nuac

I have been dealing with barristers for clients for 40+ years. Never knew they had rules about handshakes.

Would be surprised if they did not shake hands with a client

Imhof Tank

nuac wrote: »

I have been dealing with barristers for clients for 40+. Never knew they had rules about handshakes.

Would be surprised if they did not shake hands with a client

Yes, handshakes with clients etc are ok by all means - because not being barristers you never know they might be armed etc.

Just no handshakes between 2 barristers.

Ah look, I dont know if this is myth or what, but it does get mentioned every once in a while.

nuac

nuac wrote: »

I have been dealing with barristers for clients for 40+ years. Never knew they had rules about handshakes.

Would be surprised if they did not shake hands with a client

Always shake hands with a client just rarely if ever with each other though it's a dying tradition.

Farcear

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Just another random fact of which you are probably aware - Judges here are generally referred to as Judge, although we have a couple of lecturers that insist on referring to Mr Justice Clark as 'his Lordship'. I believe that is somewhat out dated but still technically correct.

Specific rules concerning the Mode of Address of judges have replaced this, e.g. High & Supreme Court judges -- http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/SuperiorAmdLookup/No119-S.I.+No.+196+Of+2006:+Rules+Of+The+Superior+Courts+%28Mode+Of+Address+Of+Judges%29+2006

"Lordship" is incorrect. However, it's still used, possibly out of habit for more senior counsel or just in front certain judges who may be known to prefer the ceremony.

Tom Young

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I've been told barristers will sometime refer to the opposition by name in the lower courts as a courtesy in helping get someone name known. In mooting, for what thats worth as information to you, learned is only used when pointing out some one is wrong. Usually 'the learned trial judge' or the 'learned judge in the court below' as most moots are based on appeals.

Just another random fact of which you are probably aware - Judges here are generally referred to as Judge, although we have a couple of lecturers that insist on referring to Mr Justice Clark as 'his Lordship'. I believe that is somewhat out dated but still technically correct.

Firstly, Mr Justice Clarke would be the last judge I would expect to require that. It might be a lecturer with a worship complex.

Tom Young

nuac wrote: »

I have been dealing with barristers for clients for 40+ years. Never knew they had rules about handshakes.

Would be surprised if they did not shake hands with a client

Well we do

Drinking, masticating, waist coats, precedence rules, all apply. My own personal bugbear is barristers, usually juniors or recently called retirees who insist on exposing their bellies to all and sundry.

NoQuarter

Tom Young wrote: »

who insist on exposing their bellies to all and sundry.

I am lost without context!

Tom Young

Context: Barristers are supposed to show respect to the court at all times. Exposing ones gut to the court is, and has been traditionally regarded as being disrespectful.

NoQuarter

Tom Young wrote: »

Context: Barristers are supposed to show respect to the court at all times. Exposing ones gut to the court is, and has been traditionally regarded as being disrespectful.

As in having the suit jacket open or ripping off their top if a judgment goes against them a la Randy from South Park??

Farcear

Remember that not all barristers are male!!!

Tom Young

Farcear wrote: »

Remember that not all barristers are male!!!

It applies equally. Too much cleavage is not great either.

Mind you, if if midriffs we're speaking about, then identical.

Marcusm

Tom Young wrote: »

Context: Barristers are supposed to show respect to the court at all times. Exposing ones gut to the court is, and has been traditionally regarded as being disrespectful.

Do you insist on a waistcoat or will a double breasted suit suffice in the irish courts?

johnnyskeleton

Kayroo wrote: »

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Is there any truth to the statement that barristers don't shake hands, as to do so with the opposing side in court, would create an air of familiarity and upset the client.

Or, as is frequently the case, am I having my leg pulled again?

Most barristers won't shake hands in front of clients for obvious enough reasons.

Some Senior members won't shake hands with you anywhere, not out of rudeness but out of a sense of tradition. Many an awkward moment can be avoided by not even offering your hand first to a more senior barrister.

Instead of a handshake, give them a big bear hug and a nice schloppy kiss. They will shake your hand every time after that.

ResearchWill

Tom Young wrote: »

Firstly, Mr Justice Clarke would be the last judge I would expect to require that. It might be a lecturer with a worship complex.

I would totally agree Mr. Justice Clark would be the last to insist on your lord, great judge, pity he is gone upstairs (SC).

ResearchWill

Marcusm wrote: »

Do you insist on a waistcoat or will a double breasted suit suffice in the irish courts?

Yes waistcoat it covers up the belly.

Tom Young

ResearchWill wrote: »

I would totally agree Mr. Justice Clark would be the last to insist on your lord, great judge, pity he is gone upstairs (SC).

Don't know. Career wise I think it's good. Awful loss to HC.

BornToKill

Tom Young wrote: »

Too much cleavage is not great either.

With the greatest respect to my learned friend, I must disagree with this.

Procrastastudy

To be clear its the Lecturer (and a SC) who insists on calling him that not the Judge - who I quite agree is probably one of the nicest and most down to earth people you'll ever meet. He's even willing to answers my stupid questions in guest lectures.

While I'm sucking up also one of the most intelligent people I've ever met. Who knew a maths background would see you in the SC.

Milk & Honey

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

To be clear its the Lecturer (and a SC) who insists on calling him that not the Judge -

There is an SC lecturing in Griffith? I know times are bad in the Law Library, but still.

Tom Young

Milk & Honey wrote: »

There is an SC lecturing in Griffith? I know times are bad in the Law Library, but still.

Yes, an SC lecturing at GCD? That's news. I suspect I know who it is poster referred and is an older JC not SC, but I stand to be corrected.

NoQuarter

Tom Young wrote: »

Yes, an SC lecturing at GCD? That's news. I suspect I know who it is poster referred and is an older JC not SC, but I stand to be corrected.

Initials?

Tom Young

No, it would be far to obvious

Procrastastudy

I could very well be wrong - my assumption was based on age and some of the cases he's been involved in. I'll not embarrass myself further by revealing names as I'm sure you folks are correct.

Edit: Am wrong - must learn to stop making assumptions.

Milk & Honey

As a matter of fact, proper etiquette is to refer to BL and not JC. JC is an invention of the Civil Service. Some BLs have demanded that the Law library website remove the reference to "Junior Counsel" on their webpage and replace it with Barrister, which has been done in some cases.

Tom Young

Milk & Honey wrote: »

As a matter of fact, proper etiquette is to refer to BL and not JC. JC is an invention of the Civil Service. Some BLs have demanded that the Law library website remove the reference to "Junior Counsel" on their webpage and replace it with Barrister, which has been done in some cases.

That's true, alas there is no escaping the facts!

nuac

As a student up to 1961 many of the above distinctions re barristers escaped me.

The only noticeable differcne was that many of those attending Kings Inns reluctant to use bikes, even tho even fewer cars amongst students these days.

In those days barristers on circuit did actually go from town to town and fraternised a lot with each other and wiht local solicitors. Some good times

there are some odd perceptions out there. I was on a committee re renovations of some local district courts years ago. The architect involved asked if he should provide separate toilets for barristers and solicitors. I was able to assure him in fairly colourful language that both branches of our noble profession had much the same equipment and processers in that area.

In fairness to the Bar whether it arises from the Kings Inn dinners, the smaller numbers, or the smaller pool from which they are drawn etc they have a much greater sense of collegiality than solicitors. They can trust each other in e.g. negotiations

johnnyskeleton

nuac wrote: »

As a student up to 1961 many of the above distinctions re barristers escaped me.

The only noticeable differcne was that many of those attending Kings Inns reluctant to use bikes, even tho even fewer cars amongst students these days.

In those days barristers on circuit did actually go from town to town and fraternised a lot with each other and wiht local solicitors. Some good times

there are some odd perceptions out there. I was on a committee re renovations of some local district courts years ago. The architect involved asked if he should provide separate toilets for barristers and solicitors. I was able to assure him in fairly colourful language that both branches of our noble profession had much the same equipment and processers in that area.

In fairness to the Bar whether it arises from the Kings Inn dinners, the smaller numbers, or the smaller pool from which they are drawn etc they have a much greater sense of collegiality than solicitors. They can trust each other in e.g. negotiations

Is that still true? I would assume with increasing numbers and more competition for work such collegiality would be a thing of the past.

nuac

Yes, I think there is still a stong sense of collegiality within the bar. Not so amongst solicitors, sadly

Dandelion6

ResearchWill wrote: »

I for one wear the wig.

Why? Out of curiosity.

ResearchWill

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Why? Out of curiosity.

The main reason is to be honest, branding. Ask any lay person to describe a barrister they usually say a wig. When I'm abroad and say what I do I'm often asked is that the guys who have the wigs (Have had a few younger people abroad think I'm a guy who makes coffee). Companies spend huge sums every year to protect and promote their brand, yet at the bar it's being cast aside.

The second reason is anonymity, I have met clients when I am in ordinary clothes and they don't know me it's great.

Dandelion6

ResearchWill wrote: »

The second reason is anonymity, I have met clients when I am in ordinary clothes and they don't know me it's great.

I admit Will, I'm dubious about your first reason, but this one I can understand!

ldxo15wus6fpgm

While I knew the white wigs came from the English system I was never sure of their actual origin. Went to the doctor the other day and he found out I was a law student and let me in on an interesting fact. Turns out the origin of the wig is syphilis. A symptom of syphilis is hair loss, so in the past when the English gentry would lose their hair they instead wore a wig, and this became a tradition amongst the wealthy and as members of the legal profession were generally wealthy and well educated they took up this tradition along with their other wealthy friends.
Mad stuff!

ResearchWill

Finn Old-fashioned Doorbell wrote: »

While I knew the white wigs came from the English system I was never sure of their actual origin. Went to the doctor the other day and he found out I was a law student and let me in on an interesting fact. Turns out the origin of the wig is syphilis. A symptom of syphilis is hair loss, so in the past when the English gentry would lose their hair they instead wore a wig, and this became a tradition amongst the wealthy and as members of the legal profession were generally wealthy and well educated they took up this tradition along with their other wealthy friends.
Mad stuff!

Well not totally true. Charles II during his exile to France took up the French custom of wearing a wig. There are many reasons why wigs became popular in France at this time and hair loss through syphilis was one but hair loss was also caused by arsenic which was used by both men and women. Originally it was a sign of wealth and power to wear a wig and in early paintings from the period it is hard to tell who wore a wig as the hair colour was the same as natural hair. It must be remembered that many with a full head of hair wore a wig, it was more a following of king set fashion, no more that when Diania first came on the scene and every woman wanted the same hair style.

Wigs in the early years also protected from lice, http://shadesbreath.hubpages.com/hub/Hairstyles-of-the-British-Court-Whigs-in-Wigs

The wig in the law was originally no different to all other professions doctors, clergy etc. except lawyers refused to adopt the practice for about 50 years (typical lawyers have to go against the trend lol), the style of wig changed to the white powered wig which took huge amounts of care in about 1822 the current wig came in to fashion, as other professions gave up wig wearing by this time it left just judges and barristers wearing the wig.

http://www.justcounsel.co/barristers-wigs-and-other-oddities-1/

Condatis

ResearchWill wrote: »

4 The gown, tabs and a dark suit are still compulsory, the wig is optional, in most courts now the wig has all but disappeared, for barristers and judges. Some courts would frown on a barrister without wig, but in reality not really an issue. I for one wear the wig.

I think that Gerard Hogan was the first barrister to appear in appear in a Court without a wig after the rules where changed.

I remember a prominent senior saying that he wore the wig partly because because of how much it had cost him.

December2012

nuac wrote: »

Yes, I think there is still a stong sense of collegiality within the bar. Not so amongst solicitors, sadly

What makes you think that?

ldxo15wus6fpgm

ResearchWill wrote: »

Well not totally true. Charles II during his exile to France took up the French custom of wearing a wig. There are many reasons why wigs became popular in France at this time and hair loss through syphilis was one but hair loss was also caused by arsenic which was used by both men and women. Originally it was a sign of wealth and power to wear a wig and in early paintings from the period it is hard to tell who wore a wig as the hair colour was the same as natural hair. It must be remembered that many with a full head of hair wore a wig, it was more a following of king set fashion, no more that when Diania first came on the scene and every woman wanted the same hair style.

Wigs in the early years also protected from lice, http://shadesbreath.hubpages.com/hub/Hairstyles-of-the-British-Court-Whigs-in-Wigs

The wig in the law was originally no different to all other professions doctors, clergy etc. except lawyers refused to adopt the practice for about 50 years (typical lawyers have to go against the trend lol), the style of wig changed to the white powered wig which took huge amounts of care in about 1822 the current wig came in to fashion, as other professions gave up wig wearing by this time it left just judges and barristers wearing the wig.

http://www.justcounsel.co/barristers-wigs-and-other-oddities-1/

I remember him mentioning the Arsenic too and lice actually. I think it's interesting that the courts had kept the tradition going for so long after initially refusing to use them! Shows how stubborn judges and barristers typically are I suppose.