MovieChat Forums > Silk (2011) Discussion > A few questions from a noob. Please help...

A few questions from a noob. Please help!

posted 12 years ago by avocadosaregross
22 replies | jump to latest

I've just finished episode 4 and a few new things have come up that confuse me.

1. Why does Billy act as if it is high treason to move to another firm?

2. When they say "chambers" are they refering to the law firm the they work at or does chambers mean something like the entire network of barristers?

3. Is Billy the boss? If not who is? This is the first British legal drama I've seen, while I've watched a few American and Australian ones. The name of the firm in Silk is Shoe Horse Lane Chambers right? I thought firms were usually called Blahblah & Associates, or Person 1 & Person 2 - which then gives you the name of who's the head of the company.

4. How come people from the same firm 'verse' each other in court? Would that not lead to conflict in the office/cause bias? This one I just cannot fathom.

Thanks!

[–] KMHleics 12 years ago

Basic misconception - SHL Chambers is not a 'firm' in the traditional business partnership sense, barristers do not operate that way. You are quite right though, solicitors do operate that way and will have a name of A & B (where A and B are partners or more likely historic founding partners).

A set of chambers is like a club or association. The barristers are all self employed, not employed by the chambers and not in partnership with each other. But they band together for the purposes of sharing out work and arranging administrative help. So in your point (2) it is more like a network, although it is only a network of the barristers who occupy the building.

Billy is the boss of the admin side of things, but has a large amount of control given that he allocated the cases, 'sells' the chambers, and runs the show. Once a case is given to a barrister though, they are entirely the boss of that case.

The traditional arrangement is for the head clerk to get a cut of the barristers fees, a bit like a showbiz agent. As a result they can be significantly more wealthy than many of the more junior members of the bar. This is fading out as I understand it, but may be why he is so keen on retaining barristers. Plus is the barristers have a good rep. it may help to 'sell' the chambers to their clientelle.

The fact that they are all self employed removes the conflict issues. Unlike a partnership if one barrister profits at the expense of another he is the sole beneficiary - his profits aren't shared. So there is no direct financial incentive for 'dodgy dealing' in chambers, although of course counsel have to be careful to put personal relationships aside. Given the relatively small number of barristers, certainly outside of london, relationships get made irrespective of whether they are in the same chambers or not.

[–] avocadosaregross 12 years ago

Oh! Thank you. You have really cleared things up for me. Seems I have absolutely no idea of the difference between barrister and solicitor! Might go wikipedia that soon.

Everything in the show makes sense now! Thanks so much for taking the time to explain that to me.

[–] jamesbloke 12 years ago

In Britain, a solicitor is the first port of call for anyone who's been arrested in a criminal case or if you want to sue someone in a civil case, for example. The solicitor represents you in the lower courts, e.g., remand hearings in magistrates court or in the small claims section of the civil courts. If the case is to go further, e.g., criminal trial or to the High Court, Family Court, etc., they will instruct a barrister to argue the case.

I don't know why we have this system, which is also used in some former British colonies, e.g., Canada, Australia, India, etc. In the US all of these functions are usually performed by the same person.

[–] GulpFriction 11 years ago

"he head clerk to get a cut of the barristers fees, a bit like a showbiz agent. As a result they can be significantly more wealthy"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/golden-life-of-the-pound350000ayear-barristers-clerks-634114.html

[–] Devon_Rex 12 years ago

4. How come people from the same firm 'verse' each other in court? Would that not lead to conflict in the office/cause bias? This one I just cannot fathom.

Further to the first answer, there are a couple of points to note about barristers operating in England and Wales:

1) The 'cab rank' system by which barristers are appointed - basically first come first served (see here for a very basic overview of this principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab-rank_rule);

2) The Chinese Wall system which means that there is an invisible but very real dividing line between opposing Counsel even within the same Chambers. They don't share clerks, sensitive documentation is dealt with only by the relevant clerk etc.

Barristers who work in the same Chambers can easily work against each other - and in quite random combinations. One week they can be working together. Another week they can be in opposition - although people tend to have preferences for which side of court they work on.

[–] avocadosaregross 12 years ago

Thanks so much everyone for clearing that up for me! Looks as if my knowledge of the legal system was based entirely on US legal dramas but that's not nessecarily how the rest of the world does it!

[–] sterhill-1 11 years ago

For a really interesting look at a legal system that is miles apart from either England or USA, check out Spiral with gorgeous Grégory Fitoussi for the French way of cops and courts. Netflix has it on the stream. Really, really different. Good show too.

[–] MoragMacGregor 11 years ago

I love love LOVE Spiral...thanks so much for recommending it!!

I still don't understand about British barristers prosecuting cases. Who chooses the prosecutor? Who decides on the charge?

In the US, it seems to me there is a lot of prosecutorial over-reachin' i.e. over-charging a case in order to force a plea deal or ensure a guilty verdict on a lesser charge. And I so often look at prosecutors at all levels of government and think, "What does it feel like to be so sure you're right all the time?"

I loved it when the judge conducting the silk interview with Martha said "As prosecutor you aren't on anyone's side...your job is to expose the truth" (only she said it more succinctly and judge-ly of course).

Does the British judicial system really run that way or is that an idealistic POV?

Morag

[–] Davo66 11 years ago

One thing I can't understand is how barristers can choose to be prosecutors in criminal cases.

This is impossible to do in Australia or the United States since criminal prosecutors are controlled and paid by government.

Criminal prosecution seems to be privatised in the UK which makes me wonder who pays the Set's?

The government or private clients?

[–] sterhill-1 11 years ago

"But they band together for the purposes of sharing out work and arranging administrative help. So in your point (2) it is more like a network, although it is only a network of the barristers who occupy the building. "

Sorry - I am still not getting it. Clive was shocked and thrilled to be headhunted and the whole thing was very underground and hush-hush. Don't tell a soul!! Yeah, I know it was a set up but then Billy comes to him and makes him his slave for Billy not to tell, that Clive's reputation would be dirt if anybody knew he was going to go to a different 'set'.

I still don't understand. These people are not in partnership, they are not group married - why the problem of going to another firm or 'set' - btw - how do you define 'set'

Thanks!

[–] beary08-517-817915 11 years ago

Clive's position is like President of a corporation, for example.

Imagine if Steve Jobs was headhunted while alive to ditch Apple for another company.... it would be a big deal, affecting reputation and possibly profitability and sustainability of Apple.

[–] sterhill-1 11 years ago

I was watching Law & Order UK (cool version of L&O) on BBC America and I just realized that these prosecutors are always the same people. This is their permanent job and they never take private defense cases. Now I am even more confused.

[–] beary08-517-817915 11 years ago

One thing I can't understand is how barristers can choose to be prosecutors in criminal cases.

When you have Silk, that is a colloquial term for the actual title which is "Queen's Counsel" (or King's Counsel if a King is reigning instead of a Queen). As QC, you represent the Crown and prosecute on behalf of the Crown (in USA, "the Crown" would be the State or County or fed gov't etc.)

This is their permanent job and they never take private defense cases.

When you work for the Crown (or State or Federal justice division etc.), you are prosecuting cases on behalf of the people of that jurisdiction. You never defend as you are representing the people overall. Cases are based on charges laid by police or Crown etc.

Private attorneys not working with the Crown or representing the Crown (eg. self-employed) defend the guilty, unless they are (as in USA) "Public Defenders" which - in Silk for example I guess - are often like beginning Barristers. Not quite at top of their profession, not as skilled, crapshoot who you get based on what the Crown wants to give you to defend you.

This is why top barristers (as in Silk) are coveted in chambers. They're known for being best among the best in their profession. If you're lucky enough to get someone that skilled to defend you, you're in excellent hands.

Hope I explained this well. It can get confusing.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (41638798) 11 years ago

Who decides on the charge?

The Crown Prosecution Service does. They decide if there is enough to charge someone.

Then if charges are proffered, then it goes to one of the chambers to get the prosecutor and the defense barrister to plead the case in court.

The solicitor of the accused can seek out a barrister as well, in some cases, as a solicitor can represent a client, but is not allowed to present a case in court, which only a barrister can.

[–] Exterminate_Exterminate 11 years ago

Not entirely true - solicitor advocates can present cases in court. As the name suggests, they are still solicitors as opposed to barristers (and therefore still regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority - instead of the Bar Standards Board).

They wear a slightly different gown in court, but are able (though not required) to wear a wig in the same circumstances that a barrister would.

I also believe they can be appointed to QC..

Chaos... panic... disorder... My work here is done!

[–] katjoeus 9 years ago

I don't understand - first, you say "You never defend as you are representing the people overall", and then further down, you say "If you're lucky enough to get someone that skilled to defend you, you're in excellent hands". isn't that a contradiction??

[–] beary08-517-817915 9 years ago

When you put it that way, yes it is! :-)

But my statements there were from two different paragraphs. In the first paragraph you reference, I was referring to the Crown counsel. In the second paragraph you reference I was referring to lawyers who act as defense attorneys.

I think it may be confusing to read the way I wrote it so this may explain it better - wiki - Barristers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrister

[–] GulpFriction 11 years ago

"This is impossible to do in Australia or the United States since criminal prosecutors are controlled and paid by government."

Private barristers in Australia are often employed by the government to prosecute cases.

[–] sekhmet-net 11 years ago

This is impossible to do in Australia or the United States since criminal prosecutors are controlled and paid by government.

Incorrect as far as Australia goes, anyway. In the state of Victoria in Australia at least, many independent barristers who specialise in criminal law routinely prosecute as well as defend - there are barristers who only defend or prosecute but most would have a mixed practice (and those who end up prosecuting usually start out defending as well). They take instructions from solicitors who work for the Director of Public Prosecutions. There simply aren't enough in house Crown Prosecutors and advocates to do all the criminal cases. You are correct that their fees are paid by the government, but, like the Director of Public Prosecutions and Crown Prosecutors in each state or the Commonwealth (which are independent statutory appointments), are not "controlled" by the executive government.

[–] jax713 10 years ago

Just started watching Silk on dvds so I am learning from this thread and also have a few questions. What kind of educational background or training is needed to be a solicitor or a clerk/senior clerk? Are solicitors independent business people? In the case of Martha defending Mark Draper who obviously had little to no money, did she get paid and by whom? Or was it a pro bono case, only advantageous to her reputation if she won and therefore another step toward silk?

Also, I'd really appreciate more suggestions on shows of this type that present how the legal system works in countries other than the U.S.

A critic will point out your failings. An enemy will never tell you what you are doing wrong.

[–] SecretSiteAgent 10 years ago

Hi, glad you are enjoying Silk, it is one of my favorites and I am watching it again now.

To asnwer your questions the sort of educational background to be a clerk is just a standard school education, preferable with good english and Maths qualifications, and you start at the bottom at about 17 or 18 and work your way up the ranks.

Training to be a solicitor requires a law degree so needs formal training. They are an independant business and operate in the same way as attorneys do elsewhere, in that they earn their money from cases of people that coem to them or through legal aid route. Legal Aid is where Martha would get the money for defending Mark Draper. This is money, on a sliding scale, paid for by the government becasue everyone has a right to legal representation, but it is income based so some low earners will still get legal aid, but would have to pay some costs towards it.

Other shows that show the British Justice System are:
Kavanagh QC - This follows various cases with the main protagonist, a Barrister both prosecuting and defending.
Judge John Deed - Follow a Judge in various cases, shows the procedures and also some of the pit falls and legal wrangles that a judge can get himself into. Is very dramatised and soem of the activities wouldn't happen in real life.
Rumpole of the Baily - This is quite old now and shows how the system used to be in the late 60's early 70's. It has the advantage on being by Johnny Mortimer, who was himself a Barrister.

[–] jax713 10 years ago

Thank you so much for the info. I'm curious about the role of Queen's Counsel. After watching many British crime and law shows, it seems that solicitors don't present cases before the court, that they refer clients to other lawyers to do that. Is this a correct interpretation on my part? In the U.S., most often if you need a trial lawyer for a criminal defense, or a personal injury case, or a civil case, etc. one would go directly to an attorney specializing in that area, without a middleman. Do QCs take cases from "walk-ins" or only cases that are referred? In the U.S. there is a lot of advertising by law firms so it's not difficult to find a lawyer but, often, one discovers that the really good lawyers don't need to advertise. And usually - at least in many U.K. shows I've seen - every Brit has a solicitor they can reach out to for advice, unlike here. Sorry for all the questions, I just find the different processes quite interesting. Especially the role of the clerks, which appears to be similar to paralegals in the U.S. except perhaps the British clerk has more influence within the firm and the legal community.

A critic will point out your failings. An enemy will never tell you what you are doing wrong.