The Gazette 1964/67

these 748 were one man offices and the remaining

363 were grouped in 154 partnerships most of

them being family firms.

Arguments for and against Fusion

There are arguments both for and against

fusion from the point of view of the public and

the profession. In the last resort it must be con

sidered and will be considered by the competent

authorities in the light of the public interest and

its practicability.

Those who favour fusion urge that

(a) it is a natural process for the same individual

to handle cases from beginning to end. The lawyer

who deals with the case in this manner obtains a

more intimate and thorough knowledge of the

facts than the barrister who must absorb a brief

submitted to him by an instructing solicitor;

(b) fusion would effect economies of time and

work from the constant presence and availability

of one or more advocates in the office. In smaller

cases it would no longer be necessary to prepare

a brief. The advocate could work from the office

file and there would be speedier communication

between the client, the office lawyer and the advo

cate. The new system would also facilitate fixing

special dates for trial of actions, at least where

the advocate is engaged in a number of cases

before the same judge;

which results from 60 per cent of advocacy being

done by 20 per cent of the Bar. A greater spread

advocacy work would

avoid

unnecessary

adjournments and save time;

(d) there would be a saving of the expense

which arises from the present method of payment

of barristers'

fees. One advocate could handle

most cases. It would no longer be necessary to

brief two senior and one junior counsel in most

High Court cases;

(e) cases would be more easily settled if all the

advocates were grouped in offices and responsible

directly to the client;

(f) fusion would facilitate specialisation by the

organisation of the profession in larger firms;

(g) the system works on the continent, U.S.A.,

Canada and some Australian States.

The opponents of fusion urge that

(a) there must be division of function even if

there is fusion of status. No man can be a jack of

all trades, combining the duties of office lawyer,

adviser,

taking

instructions, carrying out

legal

research and advocacy;

(b) under the present separated system the poor

client and small litigant can obtain the sen-ices of

the best advocates of the Bar if he has an arguable

case. Even in the absence of civil legal aid the

litigant with a real grievance can obtain

the

services of

leading counsel.

the Bar were

absorbed into firms of solicitors the leading advo

cates would be drawn into wholetime partner

ships

the

large

firms whose main clientele

consists of corporations, companies and wealthy

clients. The State would seek to enlist the services

of the best advocates on a wholetime basis. The

result would be that the best legal talent would

be drawn into the service of the State, insurance

companies and other clients with substantial finan

cial resources. This would be bad for the adminis

tration of justice;

better ensured by the present system. A barrister

who looks for his livelihood to the whole body of

solicitors is more likely to assert an independent

view, where it is necessary, on a matter of law or

conduct than one who fears to lose a client whose

business is valuable or who has only one client. It

would apply with particular force to lawyers em

ployed by the State in civil and criminal work who

would find it more difficult to be independent of

the administrative civil service and policy makers

the Attorney General was not a practising

member of the Bar. There would be no corps of

independent advocates in general practice to act

as prosecutors. State prosecution would become

a whole time salaried speciality;

(d) professional conduct

vis a vis

the Court and

colleagues in advocacy is better ensured in a small

group where each member is constantly under the

eyes of his colleagues and the Court. Misleading

the Court or deceiving a colleague is more speedily

known and punished;

(e) the standard of legal research and advocacy

is maintained at a higher standard than when it

is combined with case preparation and business

problems which is the particular function of the

solicitors' branch;

(f) the application of a fresh mind to problems

already analysed by the solicitor often brings new

aspects of the case to light. If the advocate as a

member of the firm has permanent relations with

the client the same result is not achieved;

(g) a better and more confident relationship is

established between the Bar and Bench where the

number of advocates is limited, because the Court

more readily accepts statements from a small body

of counsel whom it knows. The present system in

the Bar library is a valuable help to the training

of young barristers who have free access to the

experience of the most eminent members of the

Bar.