Barrister

Your honour I will be presenting my first submission concerning the matter of Joe and Petra. Joe strongly believes that Petra the Barrister had an obligation to represent him and she failed to so. However Petra’s reasoning towards her omission was due to the fact that during her interview with Joe she was concerned about his mental stability, and without any form of reference to that concern, she notifies Joe of her inability to represent him. In the case of Arthur JS Hall and Co and Simons 2000 Lord Steyn discusses the ‘cab rank’ principle, which highlights the inability of a Barrister to pick, and chose their desired clients. Therefore the rule ultimately binds barristers into accepting briefs, which is highlighted in the case of Rondel and Worsley 1969.

The notion of barristers being professionally bound to accept briefs is also stated in rule 21 of the 2011 barristers rule.

However your honour before I continue to proceed with these notions under Rule 21 I would just like to draw attention to the legal profession act 2004 s81 ss1, as it emphasises the practice of Barristers being subject to the barristers rule and under s83 ss1 of the act it states that Barristers may accept any clients subject to the barristers rules and the conditions of any relevant practicing certificate.

Rule 21 states four situations whereby a barrister is prohibited to decline or reject a brief, and must accept the brief before a court where the barrister practices if under rule 21A the matter is within the barristers experience capacity skill. Rule 21B whereby the barrister has the appropriate availability time to engage with the client. Rule 21C declares that the fee being offered on the brief is acceptance to the barrister and finally rule 21D the barrister is not permitted to refuse the brief under Rules 95, 97, 98 and 99.