Стирание граней между барристерами

Стирание граней между барристерами и солиситорами
В английском обществе обоснованность значительных различий между барристерами и солиситорами в последнее время все больше подвергается серьезной критике и сомнениям. В юридических кругах широко обсуждаются аргументы “за” и “против”объединения сообществ' барристеров и солиситоров “за“против”объединения сообществ' барристеров и солиситоров в единую адвокатуру по примеру стран континентальной Европы и многих других стран мира. Против объединения барристеров и солиситоров приводится в основном два аргумента.
1. Объединение не в интересах общества. В частности, высказывается мнение, что если объединить барристеров и солиситоров, то многие, особенно самые опытные и способные барристеры, перейдут работать в крупные юридические фирмы; и клиенты мелких фирм будут поставлены в неравное положение, так как крупные специалисты окажутся для них недоступными. Это приведет к тому, что мелкие юридические фирмы перестанут существовать. Тем самым сократится количество юридических услуг, предлагаемых населению.
2. Объединение не в интересах суда. В условиях состязательного правосудия судебная система во многом зависит от устного судопроизводства. Судьи нуждаются в ясных и четких аргументах, с помощью которых они могут прийти к верному и обоснованному решению. Такие услуги могут быть оказаны не всеми адвокатами, а только наиболее профессиональными и талантливыми адвокатами-барристерами.
В качестве аргументов за объединение барристеров и солиситоров называют следующие:
1. Дублирование функций барристеров и солиситоров. В настоящее время многие солиситоры в магистратских судах и судах графств фактически исполняют функции барристеров.
2. Неэффективность действующей системы. Разделение адвокатов на барристеров и солиситоров приводит к дополнительным затратам. К тому же практика, когда барристер получает резюме дела от солиситора за день-два до процесса, вызывает серьезные сомнения у клиентов.

Результаты (английский) 1:

Blurring of barristers and solicitorsIn English society the reasonableness of significant differences between barristers and solicitors lately, more exposed to criticism and doubts. In legal circles, is widely discussed arguments for and protiv"ob″edineniâ communities ' barristers and solicitors" za"protiv" combining communities ' barristers and solicitors in a single bar for example countries of continental Europe and many other countries around the world. Against the Association of barristers and solicitors provides basically two arguments.1. The Union is not in the public interest. In particular, it has been suggested that if you combine the barristers and solicitors, many people, especially the most experienced and able barristers would work in large law firms; and clients of small firms will be put in an unequal position because large specialists will be inaccessible to them. This will cause the small law firms no longer exist. Thereby reduced the number of legal services offered to the population.2. the Association is not in the interest of the Court. In the midst of controversial justice judicial system depends largely on oral proceedings. Judges need to be clear and precise arguments, by which they can come to a correct and substantiated decision. Such services can be provided by lawyers, but only the most professional and talented lawyers-barristers.As arguments for the Association of barristers and solicitors are called as follows:1. Duplication of barristers and solicitors. Currently, many solicitors in Magistrates ' courts and county courts actually perform the functions of barristers.2. The inefficiency of the current system. Division Counsel barristers and solicitors leads to additional costs. Moreover, the practice of barrister gets summary of the case from a solicitor for a day or two to process raises serious doubts from customers.

Результаты (английский) 2:

Blurring between barristers and solicitors
in English society the validity of significant differences between barristers and solicitors in recent years more and more exposed to serious criticism and doubt. In legal circles widely discussed arguments "for" and "against" the union of communities' barristers and solicitors "for" against the "community association" barristers and solicitors in common advocacy for example the countries of continental Europe and many other countries. Against barristers and solicitors association is basically two arguments.
1. The union is not in the public interest. In particular, it suggests that if you combine the barristers and solicitors, many, especially the most experienced and capable barristers, will go to work in a large law firm; customers and small businesses will be put at a disadvantage, as large specialists will be unavailable to them. This will lead to the fact that small law firms will cease to exist. Thereby reducing the number of legal services offered to the public.
2. The union is not in the interest of the court. In the context of adversarial justice court system is largely dependent on oral proceedings. Judges need to be clear and precise arguments in which they can come to a correct and informed decisions. Such services may be provided not all lawyers, and only the most professional and talented barrister.
The arguments for the unification of barristers and solicitors referred to the following:
1. Duplication of functions barristers and solicitors. Currently, many solicitors in the magistrates' courts and county courts actually perform functions Inns.
2. The inefficiency of the current system. Separation of lawyers and solicitors at the Inns leads to additional costs. In addition, practice, when a barrister gets a summary of the case by a solicitor for a day or two before the trial, serious doubts about the customers.

Результаты (английский) 3:

it will reduce differences between барристерами and солиситорами
in english society, the significant differences between the барристерами and солиситорами recently more and more is serious criticism and doubt.in legal circles widely discusses the pros and cons of communities' barristers and solicitors "," against the "association of barristers and solicitors in the communities' common law countries for examplein europe and many other countries of the world.against the association of barristers and solicitors are mainly two things.
1. association is not in the public interest. in particular, it has been suggested that if to barristers and solicitors, manyespecially the most experienced and capable of barristers, go to work in large law firms and clients of small firms would be placed in an unequal position as major specialists will be to reach.this leads to a small law firms will cease to exist. thus reduced the number of legal services to the public.
2. association is not in the interests of the court.in the context of the adversarial justice system depends largely on the oral proceedings. the judges need to be clear and explicit arguments.