quick legal question...
- Thread starter stang
- Start date
Short version: They are all different terms for basically the same thing dating from the Tudor period on in English history.stang said:
Stop here if you only wanted the light version. To explain a bit more (and I have warned you). The first thing is whether you have a unified or fused Bar or a Split Bar. Great Britain and Ireland have Spit Bars where (excluding Scotland which uses different terms) you have Barristers who represent litigants as their advocate before the courts and as their “counsellor” and Solicitors who represent and advise clients acting as their attorney meaning that they stand in the place of their client for legal purposes.
Now to confuse you yet more there are two different traditions in English Law: Law and Equity which once had their own separate courts. The two were fused in administration in England and Canada in 1873. In the U.S. this fusion happened at various times in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, in the U.S. Federal Courts in 1938, and in two states they are still separated (although the same people sit both as Judges and as Chancellors). Historically before 1873, the term Solicitor was used for those dealing with Equity in the courts of Chancery, while Attorney was used for those dealing with the Common Law in courts of Law.
Canada (common law Provinces) and the U.S. have unified Bars where a person performs the functions of both a Barrister and a Solicitor.
So given all the above: Lawyer is the most generic term. In Canada many Lawyers are referred to as Barristers and Solicitors reflecting the unification of the Bar. In the U.S. most Lawyers are referred to as Attorney’s and Counsellors-at-Law, usually shorted to Attorney-at-law, this somewhat leaves out the equity half of the equation but again reflects the both the unification of the Bar and division of practice (Attorney being the Solicitor side and Counsellor the Barrister side).
