The Gazette 1972

(v) A lowering in the standard of advocacy in civil cases would be undesirable. The poorer the level of advocacy in any court, the greater is the onus thrown on the court to supplement the advocate's work by research to be under- taken prior to delivery of judgment with a consequential delay in the determination of cases. (vi) If the solicitor's right of audience were er- tended to all courts, the extended right would be r little used as is borne out by the present experience of the Circuit Court. In the Circuit Court, the barrister and the solicitor enjoy equal rights of audience but the current prac- tice is that solicitors seldom exercise their right of audience and instead they prefer to instruct counsel in the belief that in this way they better serve their client's interests. The practice in this regard varies somewhat from Circuit to Circuit. If the extended right of audience is to be but little exercised by solicitors, then the proposed change would confer no real benefit on the public and there would consequently appear to be no good reason why a small number of litigants should be exposed to the hazards of inexperienced advocacy and the efficiency and standards of the courts impaired. (vii) It would be uneconomic for the average solici- tor to avail of such right of audience to any appreciable extent. Acting as advocate in court would necessitate the solicitor absenting himself from his other professional duties not alone to attend court but also to engage in the time-consuming legal research necessary to keep himself abreast of current law on the particular topics on which he decides to embark as advocate. 1 (viii) The present exclusive right of audience in High Court and Supreme Court proceedings given to barristers would preserve within that profession the solidarity and understanding which fosters the opportunity for discussions between counsel with a view to the settlement of cases. (i) The exercise of the solicitor's extended right of audience would eliminate some duplication of work and result in a reduction in costs to litigants. At present, if the solicitor looks up the law in a particular case, the barrister will nevertheless feel obliged to repeat the process himself. Under an extended right of audience some solicitors who have a taste for advocacy would specialise in presenting particular types of cases to a court. In cases where this arrange- ment would be feasible, the cost to the client could be somewhat less than that under the present system. In these particular cases there would be no duplication of work, no time spent in preparing elaborate instructions for counsel, no waiting on counsel and no failure of communication by the solicitor in informing ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF CHANGE IN PRESENT POSITION (16) The main arguments advanced to us in favour of extending the solicitor's right of audience to all courts a r e:

the barrister of all relevant aspects of the case. The solicitor would have to , spend more of his time on the case but the end result in the bill of costs for the client would be a smaller pay- ment than under the present system where he pays for the time of both solicitor and barrister. There would be at least a proportion of cases in which, under a system of extended right of audience, there would be no appreciable diminution of the level of advocacy and a definite saving to the community. This is an important aspect where the client's ability to finance a case is a major consideration. (ii) In the cities there is a current tendency in the solicitors' branch of the legal profession to- wards amalgamation of firms with the result that while the number of firms will be smaller, there will be more solicitors in each firm and, in such case, one of the members can more easily have assigned to him the task of acting as advocate in litigation in which the firm is engaged. Even outside the larger centres of population, there is a growing tendency to form partnerships of two or more solicitors or to employ a qualified assistant. In this way one solicitor in a firm could concern himself mostly with non-litigious work while the other could engage in court work. This is regarded as a welcome trend in the public interest in that it provides a qualified person always available to clients in the office, while the partner or assis- tant does the court work and may profit from the opportunity to develop any talent he may have as an advocate. (iii) There are many motions and exparte applica- tions which could be competently dealt with by a solicitor which at present are given to counsel. Even a litigant who wanted counsel to be retained to present his case to the High Court would be facilitated by a change in practice whereby his solicitor would be able to move some of the simpler interlocutory matters and to seek any necessary adjournments. COMMITTEE'S VIEWS (17) We are of opinion that solicitors should be granted a right of audience in all courts, at least until it appears that the disadvantages to the public interest of such extension outweigh the advantages. (18) While accepting that there is unlikely to be any significant change in the present pattern of engaging barristers to act as advocates in the High Court and Supreme Court, we are of opinion that the litigant shbuld be free to instruct his solicitor to act as his advocate in those courts if he so chooses. It also appears to us that there should be some saving to the litigant in costs in that solicitors would be entitled to be heard in such small matters as ruling settlements of cases and seeking adjournments. (19) We appreciate that the exercise of a right of audience in the High Court, where the advocate is concerned with the examination of witnesses and ad- dressing juries, differs considerably from its exercise in the Supreme Court where the advocate is concerned with arguments on important points of law. We are of opinion, however, that some of the difficulties at present envisaged for the solicitor-advocate before the Supreme Court would be obviated if the system of appeal briefs,

- 2 7 8