 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
The information in this article is useful and relevant but I think its readability can be greatly improved. I will make attempts at it, but find my style is not always to everyones liking. Davidkinnen 23:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isupport this merger, but I would the proposer to outline why they want to more things. Davidkinnen 17:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the articles should be merged. I live in Australia - we have inherited much of the basic structure of English common law, including Barristers. As far as I know, they also exist in New Zealand, as well as other former English Empire countries. A broad article on Barristers should be part of Wikipedia, and it should not be country specific. Stuart Midgleyy 17.27, 10 February 2006 (AEST)
I disagree with merger. Hong Kong also has Barrister. --Neo-Jay 04:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal was to move information from Barrister that relates to England and Wales and move into this page on Barristers in England and Wales thereby making the Barrister page more global. Absolutely it should not be country specific and currently Barrister is almost entirely about Barristers in the United Kingdom. Please check the type of merger proposed. It is not a straight forward merge but a merge from. Leaving Barrister intact as a resource on the general idea of Barrister. Davidkinnen 15:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am an Australian barrister. If UK barristers want an entry that reads like it was written by a QC charging by the word - that is fine with me. Then the colonials can write their own piece in plain English that clearly explains the difference between barrister/solicitor/lawyer/attorney and which will be intelligble to the simple people who inhabit these distant lands. Sean.
It was I whom orginally proposed the "merger" using Wikipedia tools. I've noted the comments. For the record then, there is an (unintentional) impression that the merger should result in one article in place of two. That is not the case. The merger is limited to certain text in the Barrister article article about the bar in E&W that (surely) belongs in the current article. Concomitantly, this article by definition does not cover the bars in Hong Kong, Australian states, Ireland, and elsewhere. Hopefully this clarification is satisfactory to those concerned.
In the absense of strong objection I have gone ahead with the proposal. In due course this page can be cleaned up.
--Gazzetta 13:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the article it says that from 2008 barristers will not be called to the bar until after their pupillage. However, in the second six, barristers are permitted to recieve briefs from, and represent in court, their own clients. How will this work? --David.Mestel 06:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re David Mestel's question: It is my understanding that the Bar Council proposed that at the beginning of the 2nd six, pupils will be temporarily called to the bar on a provisional basis. On completion of the 2nd six, they would then be entitled to undergo the formal process of being called to the bar. That was the Bar Council's proposals, but I think the reality is still uncertain. However, this is only from memory, and I can't find it on the Bar Council's website, so haven't added this to the wiki page yet. Fatslob 00:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The provisional report on deferral of call was published 8th June 2007 and the Bar Council look strongly like they will not be deferring the call until after pupillage. [1]. Thus the "However, from 2008, only those who have successfully completed pupillage will be entitled to be called to the bar." should be removed as inaccurate.
--MrMikeEsq 21:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
solicitors may wear wigs in court now. Perhaps this needs chanaging, along with entry for sols. Kingsbench (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Barristers in England and Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Barristers in England and Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
