Conclusion
Advocacy is one of the few distinguishing activities of lawyers. It has been the source of considerable prestige and status to lawyers in England and Wales. In recent years, the elevated status of advocacy has been under considerable strain.
The system is built on control by the Bar. It dominated prestigious higher court advocacy, and with it, access to judicial appointment. At the lower end, the junior Bar also controlled criminal advocacy, which was symbolically important. These factors helped to preserve an adversarial model of advocacy based on partisanship, a highly developed duty to the court and professional discretion in the presentation of cases.A critical stage in the reform of legal services was breaking the Bar’s control of advocacy and, with it, the barristers’ priest-like control of the law. This was partially achieved by promoting competition for access to higher courts. The Criminal Bar was undermined by reduced levels of criminal work, competition with government lawyers and reduced income from legal aid. The long-term future of the Bar depends on its continued excellence, economy and efficiency in providing advocacy services.
184 ibid, at [131].
185 ibid, at [70].
186 N Goswami, ‘Falconer: tardy litigators will be fired’ The Lawyer 4 June 2007. The current arrangements may not survive sustained competitive pressure, hence the Bar’s final embrace of the right to conduct litigation.
Some advocacy will continue to command high status and its practitioners will command high fees. It is open to question whether the volume of this kind of advocacy will sustain an elite and broad-based profession. Another question is whether the tension between the duty to clients and to the court will be satisfactorily maintained. There will be pressure to further temper the adversarial ethos, increase judicial control of proceedings and control advocates. It is important, if the rhetoric of the rule of law is to be meaningful, that lawyers continue to be fearless defenders of client rights.