Why is it considered unethical for a barrister to communicate with another side or even their own client, directly?
<p>Obviously there are exceptions to this provision, like ones who are &quot;direct access&quot;-licensed, but why does that in itself even require special licensing qualifications to be permitted? And even then, can the direct access barrister communicate with other parties on the client's behalf?</p>

<p>Writing to other parties on behalf of a client is traditionally solicitors' work. It is not necessarily &quot;unethical&quot; for barristers to do it, but the premise of the split profession is that it is more efficient for advocates to specialise in courtroom advocacy, and not spend their time on solicitors' work.</p>
<p>Representing a client outside the courtroom is a time-consuming responsibility, which a barrister may not be able to discharge while appearing in court for other clients. Barristers are sole practitioners who cannot easily delegate work to partners, junior lawyers or paralegals.</p>
<p>While direct access necessarily requires barristers to do some solicitors' work, a sole practitioner who provides the full range of legal services should really practise as a one-person law firm rather than a barrister.</p>

common-law lawyer professional-ethics any-jurisdiction barristers