The Gazette 1964/67

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. If the Bar were absorbed into firms of solicitors the leading advo cates would be drawn into wholetime partner ships in 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; (c) the independence of the legal profession is 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 if 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.

these 748 were one man offices and the remaining 363 were grouped in 154 partnerships most of them being family firms. 3. 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; (c) fusion would avoid the present bottleneck which results from 60 per cent of advocacy being done by 20 per cent of the Bar. A greater spread of 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., (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 87 Canada and some Australian States. The opponents of fusion urge that