274 / 294
(v) A lowering in the standard of advocacy in civil
cases would be undesirable. The poorer the
level of advocacy in any court, the greater is
the onus thrown on the court to supplement
the advocate's work by research to be under-
taken prior to delivery of judgment with a
consequential delay in the determination of
cases.
(vi) If the solicitor's right of audience were er-
tended to all courts, the extended right would
be
r
little used as is borne out by the present
experience of the Circuit Court. In the Circuit
Court, the barrister and the solicitor enjoy
equal rights of audience but the current prac-
tice is that solicitors seldom exercise their right
of audience and instead they prefer to instruct
counsel in the belief that in this way they better
serve their client's interests. The practice in
this regard varies somewhat from Circuit to
Circuit. If the extended right of audience is to
be but little exercised by solicitors, then the
proposed change would confer no real benefit
on the public and there would consequently
appear to be no good reason why a small
number of litigants should be exposed to the
hazards of inexperienced advocacy and the
efficiency and standards of the courts impaired.
(vii) It would be uneconomic for the average solici-
tor to avail of such right of audience to any
appreciable extent. Acting as advocate in
court would necessitate the solicitor absenting
himself from his other professional duties not
alone to attend court but also to engage in the
time-consuming legal research necessary to keep
himself abreast of current law on the particular
topics on which he decides to embark as
advocate.
1
(viii) The present exclusive right of audience in
High Court and Supreme Court proceedings
given to barristers would preserve within that
profession the solidarity and understanding
which fosters the opportunity for discussions
between counsel with a view to the settlement
of cases.
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF
CHANGE IN PRESENT POSITION
(16) The main arguments advanced to us in favour
of extending the solicitor's right of audience to all
courts a r e:
(i) The exercise of the solicitor's extended right of
audience would eliminate some duplication of
work and result in a reduction in costs to
litigants. At present, if the solicitor looks up the
law in a particular case, the barrister will
nevertheless feel obliged to repeat the process
himself. Under an extended right of audience
some solicitors who have a taste for advocacy
would specialise in presenting particular types
of cases to a court. In cases where this arrange-
ment would be feasible, the cost to the client
could be somewhat less than that under the
present system. In these particular cases there
would be no duplication of work, no time
spent in preparing elaborate instructions for
counsel, no waiting on counsel and no failure
of communication by the solicitor in informing
the barrister of all relevant aspects of the case.
The solicitor would have to , spend more of his
time on the case but the end result in the bill
of costs for the client would be a smaller pay-
ment than under the present system where he
pays for the time of both solicitor and barrister.
There would be at least a proportion of cases
in which, under a system of extended right of
audience, there would be no appreciable
diminution of the level of advocacy and a
definite saving to the community. This is an
important aspect where the client's ability to
finance a case is a major consideration.
(ii) In the cities there is a current tendency in the
solicitors' branch of the legal profession to-
wards amalgamation of firms with the result
that while the number of firms will be smaller,
there will be more solicitors in each firm and,
in such case, one of the members can more
easily have assigned to him the task of acting
as advocate in litigation in which the firm is
engaged. Even outside the larger centres of
population, there is a growing tendency to
form partnerships of two or more solicitors or
to employ a qualified assistant. In this way one
solicitor in a firm could concern himself mostly
with non-litigious work while the other could
engage in court work. This is regarded as a
welcome trend in the public interest in that it
provides a qualified person always available to
clients in the office, while the partner or assis-
tant does the court work and may profit from
the opportunity to develop any talent he may
have as an advocate.
(iii) There are many motions and
exparte
applica-
tions which could be competently dealt with by
a solicitor which at present are given to
counsel. Even a litigant who wanted counsel to
be retained to present his case to the High
Court would be facilitated by a change in
practice whereby his solicitor would be able to
move some of the simpler interlocutory matters
and to seek any necessary adjournments.
COMMITTEE'S VIEWS
(17) We are of opinion that solicitors should be
granted a right of audience in all courts, at least
until it appears that the disadvantages to the public
interest of such extension outweigh the advantages.
(18) While accepting that there is unlikely to be any
significant change in the present pattern of engaging
barristers to act as advocates in the High Court and
Supreme Court, we are of opinion that the litigant
shbuld be free to instruct his solicitor to act as his
advocate in those courts if he so chooses. It also appears
to us that there should be some saving to the litigant
in costs in that solicitors would be entitled to be heard
in such small matters as ruling settlements of cases and
seeking adjournments.
(19) We appreciate that the exercise of a right of
audience in the High Court, where the advocate is
concerned with the examination of witnesses and ad-
dressing juries, differs considerably from its exercise in
the Supreme Court where the advocate is concerned
with arguments on important points of law. We are of
opinion, however, that some of the difficulties at present
envisaged for the solicitor-advocate before the Supreme
Court would be obviated if the system of appeal briefs,
- 2 7 8