Why would a split legal profession explain why &#39;the rules of court in many [such] jurisdictions are cast as regulations rather than as statutes&#39;?
<p>Source: <a href="https://www.irwinlaw.com/titles/civil-litigation" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Civil Litigation</em></a> (Feb. 2010). pp. 29 Bottom - 30 Top.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>  In Canada, lawyers are officially both barristers and solicitors but, 
  as a practical matter, most will work primarily as one or the other. So-licitors, whose work rarely takes them into court, need to understand 
  the law of procedure as a backdrop to their area of specialization much 
  as they do the other basic areas of law in which they do not specialize, 
  but barristers who practice in the area of civil litigation come to know </p>
  
  <p>court procedures and rules through and through. In jurisdictions with 
  a divided bar, such as England and Wales or Australia, the judges are 
  traditionally drawn from the ranks of the practising barristers. They, 
  too, have a keen interest in the law of procedure and a considerable 
  knowledge of the rules and precedents. <strong>This may help to explain why 
  the rules of court in many jurisdictions are cast as regulations rather 
  than as statutes. [Bold mine]</strong> They are a finely tuned set of interrelated rights and 
  obligations between the parties to the dispute and, sometimes, other 
  affected persons, and the collateral effect of changes to the rules, which 
  may be obscure to persons who do not regularly work in a courtroom 
  setting, is likely to be obvious to those who do. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>I understand the distinction between solicitors and barristers under jurisdictions with split legal professions, but still don't clinch how this explains the bolded sentence? </p>

<p>It means that the people who work in courts are better placed to decide what the rules of the court should be than people who work in parliament.</p>

civil-procedure