I originally posted this answer, in response to the question What is the origin of the solicitor/barrister split?. The question author, Joseph P., praised me in his comment:

Excellent explanations in this link, by way of @user: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6arzly/why_did_the_roles_of_barrister_and_solicitor/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

However, a moderator deleted my answer. Why?

The text of my answer:

How does Australia split its legal profession?,

Is it that big of a deal for barristers to be trained and educated to think of themselves as to be more accessible to clients and just be a little more willing to communicate with them and adjust their explanations accordingly as to be comprehensible by a layman?

UK: Public Access Barrister vs Solicitor answers this.

Australia proffers Direct Access to barristers by laypeople too, but Australian barristers call this "Direct Briefing". See Frederick Jordan Chambers, Level Twenty Seven Chambers.

That having been said often when one reads blogs of barristers they really are the most clear and incisive, cutting straight to the source and heart of matters and it does seem like the have a deeper, more elite knowledge of the laws. Is that more or less an accurate perception? How does that interplay with the answer to the titular question?

Your perception is correct. Most first-class law graduates work as barristers, like Vinerian Scholars.

For a stark example, consider Hong Kong which has refused Direct Access, unlike England and Australia. Most solicitors in Hong Kong have merely one law degree - few solicitors in Hong Kong have the first-rate and outstanding undergraduate law degrees, not to mention postgraduate law degrees, as members of Temple Chambers and Des Voeux Chambers.

3 Answers 3


I cannot recall if I flagged the first version of this answer or not, but if I didn't then I should've for two reasons:

Did you even try to Google or research this question? Some of your questions lack any attempt at previous research


Because it didn't answer the headline question

Once the abusive material at the front was removed, the answer was a list of hyperlinks and those types of answers are not acceptable here. Once this was removed, there were answers to the OP's subsidiary questions but I didn't feel that that was worth salvagine. If you want to edit it to meet the site guidelines, I or one of the other moderators will be happy to look at it again.


The form is clearly rude or abusive towards the OP

As such, the deletion was warranted based on violation of the Rules of Conduct.

You must log in to answer this question.