UK: Public Access Barrister vs Solicitor
<p><a href="http://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media/1666529/3__the_public_access_scheme_guidance_for_lay_clients.pdf" rel="nofollow">The PDF entitled 'Public Access Guidance for Lay Clients'</a> (from <a href="http://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/bsb-handbook/code-guidance/" rel="nofollow">the Bar Standards Board</a>) compares and contrasts Public Access Barristers (abbreviated as AB) and Solicitors. Two key differences are the question of an AB's ability to 'conduct litigation, and availability of an AB.</p>

<p>However, besides the similarities (eg 1 AB is cheaper than 1 regular B and 1 Solicitor) and differences mentioned in that PDF, what are the other similarities and differences? </p>

<p>I would say all the similarities and differences between approaching a barrister directly and going through a solicitor are set out in the PDF.</p>

<p>The historical division of barristers and solicitors is discussed in the document. Traditionally, solicitors took on cases and did the 'behind the scenes' preparation before a case went to trial, and barristers represented that client in the courtroom using the prepared materials. You needed to go through a solicitor in order to be represented by a barrister; there was no way of approaching a barrister directly yourself as a lay person. </p>

<p>While this has changed with the Public Access Barrister scheme, this way of instructing a barrister is still seen as the 'default' method. In the usual scheme of things, you, as a client, would deal with a solicitor, and they would then instruct a barrister to represent you in court. </p>

<p>In the Public Access Barristers scheme, you, the client, effectively miss out the solicitor stage and you approach the barrister directly. But this leaves something of a gap. </p>

<p>In the typical client-solicitor-barrister model, the solicitor's role is to prepare the case for the barrister: collating documents for court, for example. The barrister then takes the papers, reads them, prepares an argument based on those documents and puts the client's case in a courtroom. (This isn't always the case, as the document makes clear: some barristers are not qualified to conduct litigation, for example, whereas some solicitors are qualified to represent clients in court. It's more the typical and historical model.)</p>

<p>In the Public Access Barrister scheme, there is no solicitor to prepare the case. From the PDF provided, this means that:</p>

<ol>
<li>this is cheaper, as you're not paying for two lawyers; but
conversely: </li>
<li>you will have to undertake some of the preparation
yourself, e.g. collating the papers, and</li>
<li>there are some cases which are too complex for a client to take directly to a barrister, because a solicitor would be required to prepare all of the documents necessary for the trial.</li>
</ol>

<p>In terms of similarities, you will still end up receiving the advice and/or the representation of a barrister; you simply won't be going through a third party, but will be dealing directly with that barrister.</p>

england-and-wales solicitor