Legal Tip 173: Lawyers, Solicitors, Barristers and Attorneys – What’s the Difference?

Legal Tip: Lawyers, Solicitors, Barristers and Attorneys – What’s the Difference?


A lawyer is generally someone that has completed legal studies and has been admitted as a lawyer to the Supreme Court of one or more of the States or Territories of Australia. This in and of itself doesn’t entitled them to practice law.


A solicitor is a lawyer that does gives legal advice and does transactional type legal work predominantly, though they may do some or a lot of court appearances.


A barrister is a lawyer that does advocacy type work predominantly. Most lawyers admitted as solicitors are also admitted as barristers too. But there are specialist barristers who are admitted to ‘the bar’.


A barrister admitted to ‘the bar’ wears the wig and gown in court (except in the lower courts). They are generally specialists and will be used by solicitors for complex court work and even for complex transactional work in the form of ‘opinions’.


An attorney a person appointed to act for another – such as under a power of attorney. In American English the word seems to be used to mean lawyer in the sense of the client appointing the attorney to act on their behalf.


A lawyer can only practice law if they have a practicing certificate. A practicing certificate is a certificate which authorises a person to practice law. It can be restricted or unrestricted. A restricted practicing certificate one with restrictions – the most common being that the solicitor can only work under supervision.


An incorporated legal practice is a company which recognised as a law firm.


As an example, I am a lawyer, and hold an unrestricted practicing certificate as a solicitor and barrister and my company, Structuring Lawyers, is an incorporated legal practice.


So the next time someone says that they are a ‘lawyer’ ask them – ‘do you hold a practicing certificate?’.

 

And note that a Barista is not included in the above, but do make coffee for the above.

 

And not all solicitors can practice in each state and may not be competent in all areas of law but are obliged not to act if that is the case eg some have no idea about current tax law, super law, family law etc but may be gun property and convenyancing lawyers.

I believe the practicing certificate and state bar issues limit what they can do out of state. Can you explain ?

A very good explanation of other legal parties is found in the film, The Castle

1. Respondant - We was responding to them werent we ?
2. QC - Must be very good if he gives advice to the Queen. Denis Denuto probably isnt a QC.

 

Beware accepting coffee from a lawyer.
1. They may charge for the coffee and
2. They will charge you for the time to drink it

 

I once heard of a lawyer charging for "thinking time".

If only I could do that for finance applications or to the point, potential finance applications that go no where in spite of hours of my time being dedicated to an outcome. Such is life!

 

Lawyers are only supposed to act in areas they are competent at. I could turn up at court and act on a criminal matter, even though I don't know much about it - the risk is low to me (but high to the criminal), but a criminal lawyer couldn't really start advising on a tax law matter because the risk of giving negligent advice would be costly.

For a Solicitor to set up shop in another state they would need to register with the law society in that state. Mutual recognition exists so no further study would be required.

A solicitor located in one state could advise on laws of any state/territory of Australia.

 

Yeah. . . But... .No!

@Terry_w - so what's Legal Counsel, Senior Counsel etc in the corporate field?

 

These are made up terms with no legislative basis. I have heard that there are 'senior counsel' in private firms who are no qualified or admitted as lawyers. In lawyer land counsel generally refers to barristers.

 

In WA, (and maybe a few other states), we have SC instead of QC appointments. There's old school silks which get to keep their QCs however.

 

I think that is the case in most states, including NSW. SC are the new QCs. The change happened 10 or 20 years ago for some reason.

 

Possibly tied in with the relocation of the court from Darlinghurst to the Downing Centre.

 

There was a move to untie the Royal connection. I believe it was a matter instigated with the High Court so it was seen as an Australian and not a British legal system. Where under QCs earlier the Pricy Council in the UK was the highest court. This change recognised the High Court and not British courts as the final judiciary. Malcolm Turnbull pushed hard for it before he led the Republican movement. A move towards a republic.

Victorian have bought back choice of QC or SC (but cant use both). NSW did seek to follow but the Bar didnt want to follow Vic. What was old is new again.

I want to see a QC/SC with a coloured wig. A rebel. Maybe that could be the difference. Make SCs wear non-white wigs

 

Just a warning there are some lawyers out there spruiking legal advice and strategies but they do not have practicing certificates and are not solicitors.