By Lucy Reed, 21st January 2026
Barristers, solicitors and legal executives are all lawyers, but they are different types of lawyers. There are many similarities and many differences. One is not ‘better’, more experienced or more senior than the other. They have quite different training and expertise and do different types of legal work. The system that operates in England & Wales is a ‘split’ system, where there is a division of labour between these two types of lawyers. In some countries (such as America) there is a ‘fused’ system where all lawyers can (potentially) do all things, although of course they will tend to specialise.
Training
Barristers and solicitors will all have done either a law degree or another degree followed by a one-year law conversion course. Those courses will teach them the basics of the main areas of law (things like Land Law, Contract Law etc). They will all then have done a vocational course, which is focused on how to be a lawyer rather than the law. For solicitors that includes things like handling client money and litigation, whilst for barristers it is heavily focused on advocacy, Both vocational courses involve learning about court procedure. After the vocational stage, solicitors will go on to do a 2-year training contract, working in a law firm under supervision, whilst barristers go on to do a one-year pupillage, working in a chambers supervised by a more senior barrister (a pupil supervisor). They will only be allowed to speak in court after the first six months.
The route for legal executives is more varied. Typically, a legal executive might not have a degree at all and might start out working in a law firm, and carry out their training over a number of years whilst working as a paralegal or assistant in the law firm, building up a portfolio of work and taking exams over a period of time. By the time they qualify they are often very experienced lawyers, and many of them have a particularly in-depth knowledge of the area of law they specialise in. For example, there are some very knowledgeable legal executives with a real specialism in family law. This route is often chosen by those with family / caring commitments or who have for whatever reason not been able to take a traditional route into law.
Solicitors and legal executives can do extra training to add to their rights of audience, and more recently barristers have been able to do extra training to be able to carry out litigation (see below – though not many do so).
Business structure
The explanation that follows tells you about the typical arrangements for most barristers and most solicitors – but as with much in life there are often exceptions to the rule. So, barristers are (usually) self-employed. Solicitors are (usually) not: they are employed or partners. Barristers don’t usually operate as partnerships or companies, and the majority trade as sole traders, but group together for economy and marketing under one roof which is called a ‘chambers’.
Because barristers within one chambers are all independent from one another they can act on different sides in the same dispute, but solicitors in the same firm can’t do this because they aren’t independent from each other and would have a conflict of interests. It is very common for a barrister in independent practice to represent one party involved in a case, and for their (independent) colleague in the same chambers to represent another, but when this happens they will have to be instructed by different solicitors firms. Legal executives will typically be employed within a firm alongside solicitors.
Advocacy and litigation
Barristers are specialist advocates or specialists in a particular area of law (or both).
Solicitors and legal executives do also specialise, and some do their own advocacy, but most solicitors are primarily litigators. This means meeting the client, working out what the case is, sorting out the paperwork, communicating with the other sides’ solicitors and where necessary instructing a barrister to advise about the law or to go to court and represent the client on their behalf. (There is currently a legal issue about what tasks legal executives are allowed to do, and which bits have to be done by a solicitor, which is likely to be clarified by the Court of Appeal soon in a case called Mazur.)
There are some differences between barristers, solicitors and legal executives’ rights of audience – i.e. which courts they are allowed to speak in. Barristers are allowed to speak in any court, right the way up to the Supreme Court. Solicitors are allowed to speak in the Family Court (and some in the High Court), and for Legal Executives it depends, but they can speak in most family court cases.
Barristers spend a lot of their time in court, talking to other barristers, dealing with witnesses giving evidence and addressing the Judge. Solicitors often come to court to support a barrister by taking a note or having the files to hand in case the barrister needs something. Increasingly often a barrister attends court without a solicitor. This is often more cost-effective.
A barrister is often paid by the piece of work, i.e., £x to attend for this hearing and £y to draft this document. A solicitor usually bills by the hour. Barristers are usually sent to court because it’s cheaper than sending a solicitor who bills by the hour or because the barrister is more experienced at dealing with the court side of the process (or both).
A client can instruct a solicitor directly, but to instruct a barrister you usually have to first instruct a solicitor, and the solicitor will instruct a barrister for you. An exception to this is ‘direct access’ instruction, where a client can instruct a barrister directly. This is only suitable in certain types of cases and only where the client can effectively act as their own solicitor. Not all barristers accept instructions in this way and most of those who do work this way will assess in each case whether the client and the case is one where they should agree to do the job without a solicitor. In some cases, it’s really better (and actually more cost effective) to have both.
Cab rank rule
All lawyers have very similar ethical and professional rules. They are all expected to be honest, to act in their client’s best interests, but to always put their duty to the court first.
One important distinction between barristers and other lawyers is a rule called the ‘cab rank rule’. The rule means that if a solicitor asks to instruct a particular barrister for their client, and that barrister is available and competent to carry out the job, they can’t say ‘no’ because they don’t like the client or their politics. This is to make sure that everybody is able to secure representation even if they are unpopular, unlikeable or look guilty. There are some exceptions when this rule doesn’t apply. One exception is that this rule doesn’t apply to direct access instructions, so a barrister is allowed to say ‘no’ if they don’t think the case or client is suitable to be worked without a solicitor. Another is when a barrister is working as an employed lawyer (for example in the Government Legal Department). Firms of solicitors (including legal executives) don’t have to apply the cab rank rule.
All lawyers have rules that restrict when and how they can pull out of working for a particular client once they have agreed to act – and rules that very occasionally mean they have to stop working for a client immediately (for example they will be ‘professionally embarrassed’ and have to withdraw from the case if they can’t continue without misleading the court)[1].
Piecework / continuity
A barrister will often – but not always – deal with a case all the way through, and the solicitor will check in with them regularly for advice and for them to oversee the case strategy. In other cases, a barrister is only briefed for a particular hearing or piece of advice, and instructions might be sent each time a specific piece of work needs to be done (a hearing, a piece of drafting), so there might be different barristers dealing with a case, although the solicitor will remain responsible the whole way through. This is because a solicitor is retained by a client and is responsible for dealing with what comes up as it comes up, but a barrister cannot always be available for a client to attend a particular hearing because these dates are not known at the outset. If a barrister has been previously booked to do something else for another client on the date in question, she will have to honour that first commitment, unless the first client agrees to their release (perhaps because an alternative barrister is offered that the client is happy with).
Judges
Barristers, solicitors and legal executives can become judges, although historically more judges have come from the bar than from solicitors and legal executives.
As with everything – the points above are not true all of the time, but they are generally applicable.
Teamwork
Barristers are divided up into ‘junior counsel’ and ‘senior counsel’ (also called ‘silks’ or ‘King’s Counsel’ or ‘leading counsel’). Junior counsel is any barrister who isn’t a King’s Counsel, right from the newbies to the very experienced. So, I was junior counsel until a couple of years ago, even though I’d been doing the job for 20 years (sometimes experienced juniors get called ‘senior juniors’ just to confuse you).
King’s Counsel are instructed when a case is really complex. Often – but not always – they will work with a junior, occasionally more than one junior, on a case because of the complexity and/or volume of work.
Whether or not King’s Counsel are involved, the system works best when all the lawyers on a team work together – as a team. One of the best parts of my job as King’s Counsel is working in a team with my junior and the solicitor or legal executive who is instructing me. We all have our part to play in getting a good outcome for our client, and each of us is as important as the other. The best teams and the best outcomes are produced when all the different types of lawyers respect one another’s roles and skillsets.
The best lawyers will also work constructively with lawyers from other teams, even when their cases are opposed.
Lucy Reed KC is a family lawyer, and author of The Family Court Without a Lawyer – A Handbook for Litigants in Person. In January 2026 she became Vice Chair of the Family Law Bar Association.
[1] Editorial note (CK): People must have ‘litigation capacity’ in order to instruct a legal team (i.e. they must understand the proceedings sufficiently). It’s almost always (though not invariably) found in the Court of Protection that “P” (the protected party at the centre of the case lacks capacity to conduct proceedings which is why the Official Solicitor (or other ‘litigation friend’) is appointed to conduct the proceedings on their behalf in their best interests. Occasionally there are concerns that family members of protected parties may lack capacity to conduct proceedings – for a recent case, see Macpherson v Sunderland City Council [2025] EWCOP 18 (T3) (22 May 2025)
Note: This blog post is reprinted, with thanks, from Lucy Reed’s “Pink Tape” blog. It’s an updated version of a blog originally published in August 2007. https://pinktape.co.uk/uncategorized/whats-the-difference-between-a-barrister-and-a-solicitor-version-2-0/
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 