From Incident to Resolution: Shreveports Approach

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the Anglosphere and Europe and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (December 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Practitioner of law

For other uses, see Lawyer (disambiguation).

Lawyer

Helena Normanton in English court dress, c. 1950[a]
Occupation
Names	Attorney, advocate, barrister, counsel, counselor, solicitor, legal executive
Activity sectors	Law, business
Description
Competencies	Analytical skills Critical thinking Law Legal research Legal writing Legal ethics
Education required	Professional requirements
Fields of employment	Courts, government, law firms, NGOs, legal aid, corporations
Related jobs	Barrister, solicitor, legislator, judge, jurist, advocate, attorney, legal executive, prosecutor, law clerk, law professor, civil law notary, magistrate, politician, paralegal

A lawyer is a person who is qualified to offer advice about the law, draft legal documents, or represent individuals in legal matters.

The exact nature of a lawyer's work varies depending on the legal jurisdiction and the legal system, as well as the lawyer's area of practice. In many jurisdictions, the legal profession is divided into various branches — including barristers, solicitors, conveyancers, notaries, canon lawyer — who perform different tasks related to the law.^[1]

Historically, the role of lawyers can be traced back to ancient civilizations such as Greece and Rome. In modern times, the practice of law includes activities such as representing clients in criminal or civil court, advising on business transactions, protecting intellectual property, and ensuring compliance with laws and regulations.

Depending on the country, the education required to become a lawyer can range from completing an undergraduate law degree to undergoing postgraduate education and professional training. In many jurisdictions, passing a bar examination is also necessary before one can practice law.

Working as a lawyer generally involves the practical application of abstract legal theories and knowledge to solve specific problems. Some lawyers also work primarily in upholding the rule of law, human rights, and the interests of the legal profession.^[2][3]

Some jurisdictions have multiple types of lawyers, while others only have two or one.

England, the mother of the common law jurisdictions, emerged from the Middle Ages with a complexity in its legal professions similar to that of civil law jurisdictions, but then evolved by the 19th century to a single division between barristers and solicitors.^[4][5]

Several countries that originally had two or more legal professions have since fused or united their professions into a single type of lawyer.^[6][7][8][9] Most countries in this category are common law countries, though France, a civil law country, merged its jurists in 1990 and 1991 in response to Anglo-American competition.^[10] In countries with fused professions, a lawyer is usually permitted to carry out all or nearly all the responsibilities listed below.

In some jurisdictions descended from the English common law tradition, including England and Wales, there are often two kinds of lawyers. A barrister (also known as an advocate or counselor) is a lawyer who typically specializes in arguing before courts, particularly in higher courts. A solicitor (or attorney) is a lawyer who prepares cases and gives advice on legal subjects. In some jurisdictions, solicitors also represent people in court. Fused professions, where lawyers have rights of both barristers and solicitors, have emerged in other former English common law jurisdictions, such as the United States, India, and Pakistan.^[11][12]

Civil law jurisdictions do not have "lawyers" in the American sense, insofar as that term is used in American English to refer to a single unified type of general-purpose legal services provider.^[13] Rather, their legal professions consist of a large number of different kinds of legally-trained persons, known as jurists, some of whom are advocates who are licensed to practice in the courts.^[14][15][16] In some civil law countries, a similar distinction to the common law tradition exists between advocates and procurators.^[17][18][19]

In the United States, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines, the preferred term for one practising law, "attorney at law", or "attorney-at-law", usually is abbreviated in everyday speech to "attorney". This term has its roots in the verb to attorn, meaning to transfer one's rights and obligations to another. South Africa only applies this term for certain practitioners.

Because each country has traditionally had its own method of dividing up legal work among its legal professionals, it has been difficult to formulate accurate generalizations that cover all the countries with multiple legal professions.^[20] Other kinds of legal practitioners include:

• Patent attorneys
• Trademark attorneys
• Conveyancers
• Notaries^[21][22]
• Scriveners^[21][22]
• Legal executives

While some jurisdictions regulate the use of the title "lawyer", others do not.^[11][23][24]

Historically, lawyers in most European countries were addressed with the title of doctor. The first university degrees, starting with the law school of the University of Bologna in the 11th century, were all law degrees and doctorates.^[25] Therefore, in many southern European countries, including Portugal, Italy, and Malta, lawyers have traditionally been addressed as "doctor", a practice that was transferred to many countries in South America and Macau. In some jurisdictions, the term "doctor" has since fallen into disuse, but it is still in use in many countries within and outside of Europe.^[26][27]

The title of doctor has traditionally not been used to address lawyers in England or other common law countries. Until 1846, lawyers in England were trained by apprenticeship or in the Inns of Court, with no undergraduate degree being required.^[28] Although the most common law degree in the United States is the Juris Doctor,^[29] most J.D. holders in the United States do not use the title "doctor".^[30] It is, however, common for lawyers in the United States to use the honorific suffix "Esq." (for "Esquire").

In French (France, Quebec, Belgium, Luxembourg, French-speaking area of Switzerland) and Dutch-speaking countries (Netherlands, Belgium), legal professionals are addressed as Maître ..., abbreviated to M^e ... (in French) or Meester ..., abbreviated to mr. ... (in Dutch). In Poland, the title Mecenas is used to refer to advocates and attorneys at law,^[31] although as an informal title its status is not protected by law.^[32][33]

In South Africa and India, lawyers who have been admitted to the bar may use the title "Advocate", abbreviated to "Adv" in written correspondence. Lawyers who have completed two years of clerkship with a principal Attorney and passed all four board exams may be admitted as an "Attorney". Likewise, Italian law graduates who have qualified for the bar use the title "Avvocato", abbreviated in "Avv."

Some lawyers, particularly barristers and advocates, argue the legal cases of clients case before a judge or jury in a court of law.^[34][35]

In some jurisdictions, there are specialist lawyers who have exclusive rights of audience before a court.^[36] In others, particularly fused legal jurisdictions, there are lawyers who specialize in courtroom advocacy but who do not have a legal monopoly over the profession.

In some countries, litigants have the option of arguing on their own behalf.^[37] In other countries, like Venezuela, no one may appear before a judge unless represented by a lawyer.^[38] The advantage of the latter regime is that lawyers are familiar with the court's customs and procedures, making the legal system more efficient for all involved. Unrepresented parties often damage their own credibility or slow the court down as a result of their inexperience.^[39][40]

Often, lawyers brief a court in writing on the issues in a case before the issues can be orally argued. They may have to perform extensive research into relevant facts. Also, they draft legal papers and prepare for an oral argument.

In split common law jurisdictions, the usual division of labor is that a solicitor will obtain the facts of the case from the client and then brief a barrister, usually in writing.^[41] The barrister then researches and drafts the necessary court pleadings, which will be filed and served by the solicitor, and orally argues the case.^[42]

In Spanish civil law, the procurator merely signs and presents the papers to the court, but it is the advocate who drafts the papers and argues the case.^[43] In other civil law jurisdictions, like Japan, a scrivener or clerk may fill out court forms and draft simple papers for laypersons who cannot afford or do not need attorneys, and advise them on how to manage and argue their own cases.^[44]

In most developed countries, the legislature has granted original jurisdiction over highly technical matters to executive branch administrative agencies which oversee such things. As a result, some lawyers have become specialists in administrative law. In a few countries, there is a special category of jurists with a monopoly over this form of advocacy; for example, France formerly had conseils juridiques (who were merged into the main legal profession in 1991).^[45] In other countries, like the United States, lawyers have been effectively barred by statute from certain types of administrative hearings in order to preserve their informality.^[46]

In some fused common law jurisdictions, the client-lawyer relationship begins with an intake interview where the lawyer gets to know the client personally, following which the lawyer discovers the facts of the client's case, clarifies what the client wants to accomplish, and shapes the client's expectations as to what actually can be accomplished. The second to last step begins to develop various claims or defenses for the client. Lastly, the lawyer explains her or his fees to the client.^[47][48]

In England, only solicitors were traditionally in direct contact with the client,^{[49][needs update]} but barristers nowadays may apply for rights to liaise with clients directly. The solicitor retained a barrister if one was necessary and acted as an intermediary between the barrister and the client.^[50] In most cases barristers were obliged, under what is known as the "cab rank rule", to accept instructions for a case in an area in which they held themselves out as practicing, at a court at which they normally appeared and at their usual rates.^[51][52]

Legal advice is the application of abstract principles of law to the concrete facts of the client's case to advise the client about what they should do next. In some jurisdictions, only a properly licensed lawyer may provide legal advice to clients for good consideration, even if no lawsuit is contemplated or is in progress.^[53][54][55] In these jurisdictions, even conveyancers and corporate in-house counsel must first get a license to practice, though they may actually spend very little of their careers in court. Some jurisdictions have made the violation of such a rule the crime of unauthorized practice of law.^[56]

In other countries, jurists who hold law degrees are allowed to provide legal advice to individuals or to corporations, and it is irrelevant if they lack a license and cannot appear in court.^[57][58] Some countries go further; in England and Wales, there is no general prohibition on the giving of legal advice.^[59] Singapore does not have any admission requirements for in-house counsel.^[60] Sometimes civil law notaries are allowed to give legal advice, as in Belgium.^[61]

In many countries, non-jurist accountants may provide what is technically legal advice in tax and accounting matters.^[62]

In virtually all countries, patents, trademarks, industrial designs and other forms of intellectual property must be formally registered with a government agency in order to receive maximum protection under the law. The division of such work among lawyers, licensed non-lawyer jurists/agents, and ordinary clerks or scriveners varies greatly from one country to the next.^[44][63]

In some countries, the negotiating and drafting of contracts is considered to be similar to the provision of legal advice, so that it is subject to the licensing requirement explained above.^[64] In others, jurists or notaries may negotiate or draft contracts.^[65]

Conveyancing is the drafting of the documents necessary for the transfer of real property, such as deeds and mortgages. In some jurisdictions, all real estate transactions must be carried out by a lawyer.^[66] Historically, conveyancing accounted for about half of English solicitors' income, though this has since changed,^[67] and a 1978 study showed that conveyancing "accounts for as much as 80 percent of solicitor-client contact in New South Wales."^[68] In most common law jurisdictions outside of the United States, this monopoly arose from an 1804 law^[69] that was introduced by William Pitt the Younger as a quid pro quo for the raising of fees on the certification of legal professionals such as barristers, solicitors, attorneys, and notaries.^[70]

In others, the use of a lawyer is optional and banks, title companies, or realtors may be used instead.^[71] In some civil law jurisdictions, real estate transactions are handled by civil law notaries.^[72] In England and Wales, a special class of legal professionals–the licensed conveyancer–is also allowed to carry out conveyancing services for reward.^[73]

In many countries, only lawyers have the legal authority to draft wills, trusts, and any other documents that ensure the efficient disposition of a person's property after death. In some civil law countries, this responsibility is handled by civil law notaries.^[65]

In many civil law countries, prosecutors are trained and employed as part of the judiciary. They are law-trained jurists, but may not necessarily be lawyers in the sense that the word is used in the common law world.^[74] In common law countries, prosecutors are usually lawyers holding regular licenses who work for the government office that files criminal charges against suspects. Criminal defense lawyers specialize in the defense of those charged with any crimes.^[75]

The educational prerequisites for becoming a lawyer vary greatly across countries. In some countries, law is an undergraduate degree culminating in a bachelors or master's degree in law. In some of these jurisdictions, it is common or even required for students to earn another bachelor's degree at the same time.^[76][77] Where law is taught as an undergraduate degree, legal training after law school may comprise advanced examinations, apprenticeships, and additional coursework at special government institutes. For example, in many English common law jurisdictions, individuals with a law degree have to undergo further education and professional training before qualifying as a lawyer, such as the Bar Professional Training Course.^[78]

In other jurisdictions, particularly the United States and Canada, law is taught at the graduate level following the completion of an unrelated bachelor's degree.^[79][80] In America, the Americans Bar Association decides which law schools to approve for the purposes of admission to the bar.^[81] Law schools in the United States and Canada award graduating students a J.D. (Juris Doctor) as a professional degree.^[82] In a handful of U.S. states, one may become an attorney (a so-called country lawyer) by simply "reading law" and passing the bar examination, without having to attend law school first, although very few people actually become lawyers that way.^[83]

The methods and quality of legal education vary widely. Some countries require extensive clinical training in the form of apprenticeships or special clinical courses.^[84] Others, like Venezuela, do not.^[85] A few countries prefer to teach through assigned readings of judicial opinions (the casebook method) followed by intense in-class cross-examination by the professor (the Socratic method).^[86][87] Many others focus on theoretical aspects of law, leaving the professional and practical training of lawyers to apprenticeship and employment contexts.^[88][89][90]

Some countries, particularly industrialized ones, have a traditional preference for full-time law programs,^[91] while in developing countries, students often work full- or part-time to pay the tuition and fees of their part-time law programs.^[92][93] Law schools in developing countries share several common problems, such as an over reliance on practicing judges and lawyers who treat teaching as a part-time commitment, a concomitant scarcity of full-time law professors),^[94][95] incompetent faculty with underqualified credentials,^[96] and textbooks that lag behind the current state of the law.^[94][97]

Some jurisdictions grant a "diploma privilege" to certain institutions, so that merely earning a degree or credential from those institutions is the primary qualification for practicing law.^[98] Mexico allows anyone with a law degree to practice law.^[99] However, in a large number of countries, a law student must pass a bar examination (or a series of such examinations) before receiving a license to practice.^{[98][100][101]} Some countries require a formal apprenticeship with an experienced practitioner, while others do not.^[102] A few jurisdictions still allow an apprenticeship in place of any kind of formal legal education, though the number of persons who actually become lawyers that way is increasingly rare.^[103] Lawyer occupational licensing was found to increase legal costs.^[104]

The career structure of lawyers varies widely from one country to the next.

In most common law countries, especially those with fused professions, lawyers have many options over the course of their careers. Besides private practice, they can become a prosecutor, government counsel, corporate in-house counsel, administrative law judge, judge, arbitrator, or law professor.^[105] There are also many non-legal jobs for which legal training is good preparation, such as politician, corporate executive, government administrator, investment banker, entrepreneur, or journalist.^[106] In developing countries like India, a large majority of law students never actually practice, but simply use their law degree as a foundation for careers in other fields.^[107]

In most civil law countries, lawyers generally structure their legal education around their chosen specialty; the boundaries between different types of lawyers are carefully defined and hard to cross.^[108] After one earns a law degree, career mobility may be severely constrained.^[109] For example, unlike their Anglo-American counterparts,^[110] it is difficult for German judges to leave the bench and become advocates in private practice.^[111] Another interesting example is France, where for much of the 20th century, all judiciary officials were graduates of an elite professional school for judges.^[112]

In a few civil law countries, such as Sweden,^[113] the legal profession is not rigorously bifurcated and everyone within it can easily change roles and arenas.

In many countries, lawyers are general practitioners who represent clients in a broad field of legal matters.^[114] In others, there has been a tendency since the start of the 20th century for lawyers to specialize early in their careers.^[115][116] In countries where specialization is prevalent, many lawyers specialize in representing one side in one particular area of the law; thus, it is common in the United States to hear of plaintiffs' personal injury attorneys.^[117][118]

Lawyers in private practice generally work in specialized businesses known as law firms,^[119] with the exception of English barristers. The vast majority of law firms worldwide are small businesses that range in size from 1 to 10 lawyers.^[120] The United States,^[121] United Kingdom and Australia are exceptions, home to several firms with more than 1,000 lawyers after a wave of mergers in the late 1990s.

Notably, barristers in England, Wales, Ireland, Northern Ireland and some states in Australia do not work in law firms. Those who offer their services to members of the general public—as opposed to those working in-house — are generally self-employed.^[122] Most work in groupings known as "sets" or "chambers", where some administrative and marketing costs are shared. An important effect of this different organizational structure is that there is no conflict of interest where barristers in the same chambers work for opposing sides in a case, and in some specialized chambers this is commonplace.

Some large businesses employ their own legal staff in a legal department.^[123] Other organizations buy in legal services from outside companies.^[124]

In some jurisdictions, either the judiciary^[125] or the Ministry of Justice^[126] directly supervises the admission, licensing, and regulation of lawyers.

Other jurisdictions, by statute, tradition, or court order, have granted such powers to a professional association which all lawyers must belong to.^[127] In the U.S., such associations are known as mandatory, integrated, or unified bar associations. In the Commonwealth of Nations, similar organizations are known as Inns of Court, bar councils or law societies.^[128] In civil law countries, comparable organizations are known as Orders of Advocates,^[129] Chambers of Advocates,^[130] Colleges of Advocates,^[131] Faculties of Advocates,^[132] or similar names. Generally, a nonmember caught practicing law may be liable for the crime of unauthorized practice of law.^[133]

In common law countries with divided legal professions, barristers traditionally belong to the bar council (or an Inn of Court) and solicitors belong to the law society. In the English-speaking world, the largest mandatory professional association of lawyers is the State Bar of California, with 230,000 members.

Some countries admit and regulate lawyers at the national level, so that a lawyer, once licensed, can argue cases in any court in the land. This can be seen in countries including New Zealand, Japan, and Belgium.^[134] Others, especially those with federal governments, tend to regulate lawyers at the state or provincial level; this is the case in the United States,^[135] Canada,^[136] Australia,^[137] and Switzerland,^[138] to name a few. Brazil is the most well-known federal government that regulates lawyers at the national level.^[139]

Some countries, like Italy, regulate lawyers at the regional level,^[140] and a few, like Belgium, even regulate them at the local level (that is, they are licensed and regulated by the local equivalent of bar associations but can advocate in courts nationwide).^[141] In Germany, lawyers are admitted to regional bars and may appear for clients before all courts nationwide with the exception of the Federal Court of Justice of Germany (Bundesgerichtshof or BGH).^[142]

Generally, geographic limitations can be troublesome for a lawyer who discovers that his client's cause requires him to litigate in a court beyond the normal geographic scope of his license. Although most courts have special pro hac vice rules for such occasions, the lawyer will still have to deal with a different set of professional responsibility rules, as well as the possibility of other differences in substantive and procedural law.

Some countries grant licenses to non-resident lawyers, who may then appear regularly on behalf of foreign clients. Others require all lawyers to live in the jurisdiction or to even hold national citizenship as a prerequisite for receiving a license to practice. But the trend in industrialized countries since the 1970s has been to abolish citizenship and residency restrictions. For example, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down a citizenship requirement on equality rights grounds in 1989,^[143] and similarly, American citizenship and residency requirements were struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 and 1985, respectively.^[144] The European Court of Justice made similar decisions in 1974 and 1977 striking down citizenship restrictions in Belgium and France.^[145]

Voluntary lawyer associations may exist at all geographic levels from the provincial to the global.^[99][146] Some associations are termed voluntary bar associations.^[147] In some countries, lawyers have also formed trade unions.^[148]

A key difference among countries is whether lawyers should be regulated solely by an independent judiciary and its subordinate institutions (a self-regulating legal profession),^[149] or whether lawyers should be subject to supervision by the Ministry of Justice in the executive branch.

In most civil law countries, the government has traditionally exercised tight control over the legal profession in order to ensure a steady supply of loyal judges and bureaucrats. That is, lawyers were expected first and foremost to serve the state, and the availability of counsel for private litigants was an afterthought.^[150] Even in civil law countries like Norway which have partially self-regulating professions, the Ministry of Justice is the sole issuer of licenses, and makes its own independent re-evaluation of a lawyer's fitness to practice after a lawyer has been expelled from the Advocates' Association.^[126] Brazil is an unusual exception in that its national Order of Advocates has become a fully self-regulating institution with direct control over licensing and has successfully resisted government attempts to place it under the control of the Ministry of Labor.^[151][152]

Of all the civil law countries, communist countries historically went the farthest towards total state control, with all communist lawyers forced to practice in collectives by the mid-1950s.^[153][154] China is a prime example: technically, the People's Republic of China did not have lawyers, and instead had only poorly trained, state-employed "legal workers" prior to the enactment of a comprehensive reform package in 1996 by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.^[155]

In contrast, common law lawyers have traditionally regulated themselves through institutions where the influence of non-lawyers, if any, was weak and indirect, despite nominal state control.^[156] Such institutions have been traditionally dominated by private practitioners who opposed strong state control of the profession on the grounds that it would endanger the ability of lawyers to zealously and competently advocate their clients' causes in the adversarial system of justice.^[157] However, the concept of the self-regulating profession has been criticized as a sham which serves to legitimize the professional monopoly while protecting the profession from public scrutiny.^[158] In some jurisdictions, mechanisms have been astonishingly ineffective, and penalties have been light or nonexistent.^{[159][160][161]}

Hostility towards the legal profession is a widespread phenomenon. For example, William Shakespeare famously wrote, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" in Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2. The legal profession was abolished in Prussia in 1780 and in France in 1789, though both countries eventually realized that their judicial systems could not function efficiently without lawyers.^[162] Complaints about too many lawyers were common in both England and the United States in the 1840s,^[163][164] Germany in the 1910s,^[165] and in Australia,^[166] Canada,^[167] the United States,^{[168][169][170]} and Scotland^[171] in the 1980s.

Public distrust of lawyers reached record heights in the United States after the Watergate scandal.^[170][172] In the aftermath of Watergate, legal self-help books became popular among those who wished to solve their legal problems without having to deal with lawyers.^[173] Lawyer jokes also soared in popularity in English-speaking North America as a result of Watergate.^[174] Lawyers have been accused of political bias^[175] and their political ideology impacting jurisprudence and legal education.^[176][177]

In Adventures in Law and Justice, legal researcher Bryan Horrigan dedicated a chapter to "Myths, Fictions, and Realities" about law and illustrated the perennial criticism of lawyers as "amoral [...] guns for hire"^[178] with a quote from Ambrose Bierce's satirical The Devil's Dictionary that summarized the noun as: "LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law."^[179]

More generally, in Legal Ethics: A Comparative Study, law professor Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. with Angelo Dondi briefly examined the "regulations attempting to suppress lawyer misconduct" and noted that their similarity around the world was paralleled by a "remarkable consistency" in certain "persistent grievances" about lawyers that transcends both time and locale, from the Bible to medieval England to dynastic China.^[180] The authors then generalized these common complaints about lawyers as being classified into five "general categories" as follows:

• abuse of litigation in various ways, including using dilatory tactics and false evidence and making frivolous arguments to the courts
• preparation of false documentation, such as false deeds, contracts, or wills
• deceiving clients and other persons and misappropriating property
• procrastination in dealings with clients
• charging excessive fees.^[181]

Some studies have shown that suicide rates among lawyers in certain jurisdictions may be as much as six times higher than the average population, and commentators suggest that the low opinion the public has of lawyers, combined with their own high ideals of justice, which in practice they may see denied, increase the depression rates of those in this profession.^[182][183] Additionally, lawyers are twice as likely to suffer from addiction to alcohol and other drugs.^[184]

In the United States, lawyers typically earn between $100,000 and $220,000 per year, although earnings vary by age, experience, and practice setting.^{[185][186][187][188][189]}

Lawyers are paid for their work in a variety of ways. In private practice, they may work for an hourly fee according to a billable hour structure,^[190] a contingency fee,^[191] or a lump sum payment. Normally, most lawyers negotiate a written fee agreement up front and may require a non-refundable retainer in advance. Recent studies suggest that when lawyers charge a fixed fee rather than billing by the hour, they work less hard on behalf of clients, and clients get worse outcomes.^[192][193] In many countries there are fee-shifting arrangements by which the loser must pay the winner's fees and costs; the United States is the major exception,^[194] although in turn, its legislators have carved out many exceptions to the so-called "American Rule" of no fee shifting.

Lawyers working directly on the payroll of governments, nonprofits, and corporations usually earn a regular annual salary.^[195] In many countries, lawyers can also volunteer their labor in the service of worthy causes through an arrangement called pro bono (short for pro bono publico, "for the common good").^[196] Traditionally such work was performed on behalf of the poor, but in some countries it has now expanded to many other causes such as environmental law.

In some countries, there are legal aid lawyers who specialize in providing legal services to the indigent.^[197][198] France and Spain even have formal fee structures by which lawyers are compensated by the government for legal aid cases on a per-case basis.^[199] A similar system, though not as extensive or generous, operates in Australia, Canada, and South Africa.^[200]

In other countries, legal aid specialists are practically nonexistent. This may be because non-lawyers are allowed to provide such services; in both Italy and Belgium, trade unions and political parties provide what can be characterized as legal aid services. Some legal aid in Belgium is also provided by young lawyer apprentices subsidized by local bar associations (known as the pro deo system), as well as consumer protection nonprofit organizations and Public Assistance Agencies subsidized by local governments.^[201] In Germany, mandatory fee structures have enabled widespread implementation of affordable legal expense insurance.^[202]

The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this section, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new section, as appropriate. (December 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The earliest people who could be described as "lawyers" were probably the orators of ancient Athens. However, Athenian orators faced serious structural obstacles. First, there was a rule that individuals were supposed to plead their own cases, which was soon bypassed by the increasing tendency of individuals to ask a "friend" for assistance.^[203] However, around the middle of the fourth century, the Athenians disposed of the perfunctory request for a friend.^[204] Second, a more serious obstacle, which the Athenian orators never completely overcame, was the rule that no one could take a fee to plead the cause of another. This law was widely disregarded in practice, but was never abolished, which meant that orators could never present themselves as legal professionals or experts.^[205] They had to uphold the legal fiction that they were merely an ordinary citizen generously helping out a friend for free, and thus they could never organize into a real profession.^[206] If one narrows the definition of lawyers to people who could practice the legal profession openly and legally, then the first lawyers would be the orators of ancient Rome.^[207]

A law enacted in 204 BC barred Roman advocates from taking fees, but the law was widely ignored.^[208] The ban on fees was abolished by Emperor Claudius, who legalized advocacy as a profession and allowed the Roman advocates to become the first lawyers who could practice openly—but he also imposed a fee ceiling of 10,000 sesterces.^[209] This was apparently not much money; the Satires of Juvenal complained that there was no money in working as an advocate.^[210]

Like their Greek contemporaries, early Roman advocates were trained in rhetoric, not law, and the judges before whom they argued were also not legally trained.^[211] But very early on, unlike Athens, Rome developed a class of specialists who were learned in the law, known as jurisconsults (iuris consulti).^[212] Jurisconsults were wealthy amateurs who dabbled in law as an intellectual hobby; they did not make their primary living from it.^[212] They gave legal opinions (responsa) on legal issues to all comers (a practice known as publice respondere).^[213] Roman judges and governors would routinely consult with an advisory panel of jurisconsults before rendering a decision, and advocates and ordinary people also went to jurisconsults for legal opinions.^[212] The Romans were the first to have a class of people who spent their days thinking about legal problems, and this is why their law developed in a systematic and technical way.^[212]

During the Roman Republic and the early Roman Empire, jurisconsults and advocates were unregulated, since the former were amateurs and the latter were technically illegal.^[214] Any citizen could call himself an advocate or a legal expert, though whether people believed him would depend upon his personal reputation. This changed once Claudius legalized the legal profession. By the start of the Byzantine Empire, the legal profession had become well-established, heavily regulated, and highly stratified.^[215] The centralization and bureaucratization of the profession was apparently gradual at first, but accelerated during the reign of Emperor Hadrian.^[216] At the same time, the jurisconsults went into decline during the imperial period.^[217]

By the fourth century, advocates had to be enrolled on the bar of a court to argue before it, they could only be attached to one court at a time, and there were restrictions on how many advocates could be enrolled at a particular court.^[218] By the 380s, advocates were studying law in addition to rhetoric, thus reducing the need for a separate class of jurisconsults; in 460, Emperor Leo imposed a requirement that new advocates seeking admission had to produce testimonials from their teachers; and by the sixth century, a regular course of legal study lasting about four years was required for admission.^[219] Claudius's fee ceiling lasted all the way into the Byzantine period, though by then it was measured at 100 solidi.^[220] It was widely evaded, either through demands for maintenance and expenses or a sub rosa barter transaction.^[220] The latter was cause for disbarment.^[220]

The notaries (tabelliones) appeared in the late Roman Empire. Like their modern-day descendants, the civil law notaries, they were responsible for drafting wills, conveyances, and contracts.^[221] They were ubiquitous and most villages had one.^[221] In Roman times, notaries were widely considered to be inferior to advocates and jury consults.

After the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the onset of the Early Middle Ages, the legal profession of Western Europe collapsed. As James Brundage has explained: "[by 1140], no one in Western Europe could properly be described as a professional lawyer or a professional canonist in anything like the modern sense of the term 'professional.' "^[222] However, from 1150 (when Decretum Gratiani was compiled) onward, a small but increasing number of men became experts in canon law but only in furtherance of other occupational goals, such as serving the Catholic Church as priests.^[223] From 1190 to 1230, however, there was a crucial shift in which some men began to practice canon law as a lifelong profession in itself.^[224]

The legal profession's return was marked by the renewed efforts of church and state to regulate it. In 1231, two French councils mandated that lawyers had to swear an oath of admission before practicing before the bishop's courts in their regions, and a similar oath was promulgated by the papal legate in London in 1237.^[225] During the same decade, the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire Frederick II, the king of the Kingdom of Sicily, imposed a similar oath in his civil courts.^[226] By 1250, the nucleus of a new legal profession had clearly formed.^[227] The new trend towards professionalization culminated in a controversial proposal at the Second Council of Lyon in 1275 that all ecclesiastical courts should require an oath of admission.^[228] Although not adopted by the council, it was highly influential in many such courts throughout Europe.^[228] The civil courts in England also joined the trend towards professionalization; in 1275 a statute was enacted that prescribed punishment for professional lawyers guilty of deceit,^[229] and in 1280 the mayor's court of the city of London promulgated regulations concerning admission procedures, including the administering of an oath.^[230] And in 1345, the French crown promulgated a royal ordinance which set forth 24 rules governing advocates, of which 12 were integrated into the oath to be taken by them.^[231]

The French medieval oaths were widely influential and of enduring importance; for example, they directly influenced the structure of the advocates' oath adopted by the Canton of Geneva in 1816.^[232][233] In turn, the 1816 Geneva oath served as the inspiration for the attorney's oath drafted by David Dudley Field as Section 511 of the proposed New York Code of Civil Procedure of 1848, which was the first attempt in the United States at a comprehensive statement of a lawyer's professional duties.^[232]

Type of notice issued by a law enforcement official

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Traffic ticket" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (December 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)

(Learn how and when to remove this message)

A traffic ticket is a notice issued by a law enforcement official to a motorist or other road user, indicating that the user has violated traffic laws. Traffic tickets generally come in two forms, citing a moving violation, such as exceeding the speed limit, or a non-moving violation, such as a parking violation, with the ticket also being referred to as a parking citation, or parking ticket.

In some jurisdictions, a traffic ticket constitutes a notice that a penalty, such as a fine or accumulation of “points”, has been or will be assessed against the driver or owner of a vehicle; failure to pay generally leads to prosecution or to civil recovery proceedings for the fine. In others, the ticket constitutes only a citation and summons to appear at traffic court, with a determination of guilt to be made only in court.

Australia

[edit]

In Australia, traffic laws are made at the state level, usually in their own consolidated Acts of Parliament which have been based upon the Australian Road Rules.

New South Wales

[edit]

Traffic tickets are known as Traffic infringement notices (TIN's) in New South Wales. Transport for NSW maintains a database of all registered holders of a driver's license in NSW, including the driver's traffic history and registered motor vehicles.

• Owner issued infringements

Transport for NSW maintain a number of fixed, and mobile, speed cameras and red light cameras across the State. The State Debt Recovery Office (SDRO) manages the processing and issuing of traffic tickets detected and issued by these devices.^[1] These tickets are deemed to be 'owner onus' tickets with the vehicles registered owner deemed liable unless they nominate another driver via statutory declaration.

• Driver issued infringements

These are generally issued 'on the spot' by a police officer although there are other authorised officers that can issue traffic infringements such as Transport for NSW heavy vehicle inspectors and Traffic Commanders. The infringement notice is written on three carbonised pieces of printed paper, known as Part A, B and C. Part A is the original and is sent to the State Debt Recovery Office (SDRO) by the issuing officer when they return to the station, Part B stays in the infringement book for accountability and Part C is given to the accused person at the scene or via post. Infringement notices issued by Councils or Commercial Clients by way of electronic handheld devices still have as associated application for details provided on a copy of the Part A, to be made available for perusal if required.

In New South Wales, all Traffic infringement notices (TIN's) and Parking Infringement Notices (PIN's) are part of the Self-Enforcing Infringement Notice Scheme (SEINS). This scheme aims to minimize Court time for people who wish to plead guilty. The accused person can either elect to pay/part pay the infringement by way of a number of online means or through Australia Post, this can be found on the ticket. If the Accused person pays the infringement, they are deemed to have pleaded guilty and any demerit points will be deducted from their driver's licence. Matters only go to Court if the accused person elects to have the matter heard at Court.

If the accused person wishes to plead not guilty, they fill the reverse side of Part C out and mail it to the State Debt Recovery Office (SDRO). Once this is done, a Court date is set for hearing before a Magistrate and the officer is notified. The officer creates a brief of evidence and provides this to the Court and the accused person, this contains a copy of Part A, which includes the facts of the matter i.e. observations and contemporaneous notes, including description of vehicle, and whether or not any photographs of an offending vehicle have been taken. Quite often, an officer will indicate that they have taken only (1) photograph of a vehicle then, when a matter is defended in court and the prosecution provide a brief of evidence with anything up to 4-5 extra photographs this can lead to some of the photographs being excluded as evidence because there is no indication to show on the Part A that they were taken at the time of the offence.

Upon being issued a traffic infringement, or parking infringement notice, (in person or to a vehicle) an accused person will generally receive a penalty reminder notice in the mail approximately 28 days later, if the fine remains unpaid.

Under the Fines Act of 1996 (NSW) Time for service of penalty reminder notices by post, is (7) days unless it is established that it was not served within (7) days. A due date for payment of Penalty Reminder notices under this Act is (21) days after it is served. Generally from the date of an offence approximately (28) days is given, after which time of the due date they will then have approximately an additional 21 days in which to take action, and finalise the matter. This includes (7) to allow for service, and (14) days for action to be taken.

If the fine is not actioned by the due date on the penalty reminder notice, an enforcement order will be issued and additional costs apply. If the enforcement order remains unpaid further enforcement action can follow, which may include suspension of the persons driver licence and/or vehicle registration, restrictions on conducting business with Transport for NSW, garnisheeing of wages, property seizure order or a community service order and additional fees.^[2]

Canada

[edit]

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Traffic ticket" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

In Canada, most traffic laws are made at the provincial level. However, some serious violations are criminal offences, contrary to the federal Criminal Code. Both levels of government may deal with different aspects of the same misconduct. For example, drinking and driving may be a criminal offence of driving while impaired, or driving with a blood alcohol level greater than .08. At the same time, most provinces have laws specifying administrative penalties for driving with a blood alcohol level which does not exceed the criminal blood alcohol level of .08, in particular for newly licensed drivers.^[3]

Each province maintains a database of motorists, including their convicted traffic violations. Upon being ticketed, a motorist has a chance to plead guilty or not guilty with an explanation. The motorist or their representative must attend the court for the town or city in which the violation took place to do so.

If the motorist pleads not guilty, a trial date is set and both the motorist, or a lawyer/paralegal representing the motorist, and the ticketing officer, are required to attend. If the officer fails to attend, the court judge will often find in favour of the motorist and dismiss the charge, although sometimes the trial date is moved to give the officer another chance to attend. In some provinces, officers are now paid time and a half to attend traffic proceedings. The court will also make provisions for the officer or the prosecutor to achieve a deal with the motorist, often in the form of a plea bargain. If no agreement is reached, both motorist and officer, or their respective representatives, formally attempt to prove their case before the judge or Justice of Peace, who then decides the matter.

If the motorist pleads guilty, the outcome is equivalent to conviction after trial. Upon conviction, the motorist is generally fined a monetary amount and, for moving violations, is additionally given demerit points, under each province's point system. Jail time is sometimes sought in more serious cases such as racing or stunt driving.

In the province of Ontario, drivers who are convicted of certain driving related offences result in demerit points recorded onto their driving records. It is commonly misconceived that drivers actually "lose" points due to convictions for certain traffic offences. In fact, a driver begins with zero demerit points and accumulates demerit points for convictions. Demerit points stay on a driver's record for two years from the original offence date. If a driver accumulates enough points, a suspension/loss of licence can occur.

For a fully licensed driver in Ontario, the accumulation of six demerit points results in a "warning" letter. At nine points, the driver is scheduled a mandatory interview to discuss their record and give specific reasonings as to why the licence should not be suspended. If a driver fails to attend this meeting, their licence may be automatically suspended. At 15 or more points, a driver's licence will be suspended for 30 days. Surrendering a licence to the Ministry of Transportation is mandatory at this stage; failure to surrender the licence may result in a suspension/loss for up to two years.

In the Republic of Ireland, a traffic ticket (which is mailed out to the driver) is in the form of a notice alleging that some crime – traffic offences are all criminal offences – has been committed, but stating that if a payment of a certain amount is made to the Garda Síochána within 28 days, or the amount increased by 50% is paid within 56 days, the driver will not be prosecuted for the alleged offence. Some tickets carry penalty points as well as the fine.

Most Nordic countries determines some traffic fines based on income. For example, Finland's system for calculating fines starts with an estimate of the amount of spending money a Finn has for one day, and then divides that by two. The resulting number is considered a "reasonable" amount of spending money to deprive the offender of. Then, based on the severity of the crime, the system has rules for how many days the offender must go without that money. For example, driving about 15 mph over the speed limit results in a multiplier of 12 days. Most reckless drivers pay between $30 and $50 per day, for a total of about $400 or $500. In 2002, a Nokia executive was fined the equivalent of $103,000 for driving at 75 km/h (47 mph) in a 50 km/h (31 mph) zone on his motorcycle.^[4][5] Estonia is experimenting with a "time out" in lieu of fines: the motorist waits at the side of the road for 45 minutes or an hour.^[6]

In the United States, most traffic laws are codified in a variety of state, county and municipal laws or ordinances, with most minor violations classified as infractions, civil charges or criminal charges. The classification of the charge depends on the violation itself as well as the jurisdiction, with infractions, civil charges and criminal charges relating to different standards of proof, trial rules and punishments.

What constitutes a "minor violation" or infraction varies, examples include non-moving violations, defective or improper vehicle equipment, seat belt and child-restraint safety violations, and insufficient proof of license, insurance or registration. A trend in the late 1970s and early 1980s also saw an increased tendency for jurisdictions to re-classify certain speeding violations as civil infractions.^[7] In contrast, for more "serious" violations, traffic violators may be held criminally liable, accused of a misdemeanor or even a felony. Serious violations tend to involve multiple prior offenses, willful disregard of public safety, death or serious bodily injury, or damage to property.^[7] A frequently used penalty is a fine, and this is ordinarily a fixed amount of money, instead of being an amount of money determined based on the facts of each individual case.^[8]

If the motorist wishes to contest a traffic infraction, a hearing can be set by the court upon proper request.^[9] The hearings are before a magistrate or judge depending on the state or city. Hearing dates may potentially be adjourned, and witnesses or police officers may be subpoenaed to appear in court.

At any point after the issuance of a ticket, a motorist may retain an attorney to represent them in a traffic infraction. Retaining or consulting an attorney may be beneficial to the motorist because an attorney would better understand how to contest an infraction in any given state or municipality. Attorneys may offer full representation in court, taking a case from inception to disposal and potentially appeals, although it may be possible for a defendant to retain a lawyer to discuss legal options, identify important defenses, and determine a defense strategy without hiring the lawyer to provide in-court representation.^[10]

The motorist may be given the opportunity to schedule a hearing for a time at which the subpoenaed ticketing officer is unable to attend. If the officer or representative fails to attend the trial for a civil infraction, the trial court may adjourn the hearing to a date upon which the officer is able to appear or, particularly if good cause is not shown for the officer's absence, the court judge may dismiss the charge.

Although each judge, state, county or municipality handle contested hearings a little differently, the court may make provisions for the prosecutor to achieve a deal with the motorist, often in the form of a plea bargain that may reduce the impact from that which would be incurred from pleading guilty without attending court. If no agreement is reached, and the prosecutor feels it is worth his time to charge the motorist, both motorist and officer, or their respective representatives, formally attempt to prove their case before the judge, who then decides the matter.

In some states and for criminal traffic violations, the judge may also order a jury trial, in which case a jury will hear arguments from both sides, and then consider the facts in the case and render a verdict.^[11] The motorist may, for example, put forward a reason their alleged violation was justified, such as to "get out of the way of an ambulance or avoid a collision with another motorist", and call into doubt the level to which the officer recalls the specific details of the situation among the many tickets they have issued.

In Washington state, there is a local option for courts to permit a decision on written statements, without the officer's live appearance in court.^[12] California offers a procedure in which both the officer and the ticketed driver may appear in writing, through a Trial by Written Declaration.^[13]

Some states permit challenging a traffic infraction through a written statement instead of appearing in court. For example, California's Vehicle Code Section 40902 permits individuals to obtain a trial by written declaration instead of making an in-court appearance.^[14]

Each state's Department of Motor Vehicles or Bureau of Motor Vehicles maintains a database of motorists, including their convicted traffic violations. Upon being ticketed, a motorist is given the option to mail into the local court or the court for the jurisdiction in which the violation is alleged—a plea of guilty, not guilty or nolo contendere within a certain time frame (usually ten to fifteen days, although courts generally provide leniency in this regard). Additionally, the motorist can request a mitigation hearing, which acknowledges that the driver is guilty of a moving violation, but is requesting a hearing with a judge to reduce the fines associated with the ticket.^[15]

If the motorist pleads guilty, the outcome is equivalent to a conviction after the hearing. Upon conviction, the motorist is generally fined a monetary amount and, for moving violations, is additionally assessed a penalty under each state's point system. Wyoming being an exception as there is no motor vehicle point system.^[16] If a motorist is convicted of a violation in a state other than the state in which the motorist is registered, information about the ticket is relayed in accord with state policy and agreements between the two states, including the Non-Resident Violator Compact. If the ticket information is not abstracted to the state in which the motorist is licensed, then the record of the conviction remains local to the state where the violation took place.

The practice of ticket fixing by police officers is a recurring source of controversy in the United States. Police officers in many jurisdictions surreptitiously cancel tickets as a "professional courtesy" to the friends and family of other police officers. This practice is not legal in most jurisdictions, but enforcement is often lax, leading to periodic scandals.^[17][18][19]

There are many competing claims as to the first speeding ticket ever issued depending whether the claim goes by the first traffic violation or the first paper ticket ever issued. Great Britain may have the earliest claim with the first person to be convicted of speeding, Walter Arnold of East Peckham, Kent, who on 28 January 1896 was fined for speeding at 8 mph (13 km/h) in a 2 mph (3.2 km/h) zone. He was fined 1 shilling plus costs.^[20][21][22] A New York City cab driver named Jacob German was arrested for speeding on May 20, 1899 for driving 12 miles per hour on Lexington Avenue in Manhattan. In Dayton, Ohio, police issued a paper ticket to Harry Myers for going twelve miles per hour on West Third Street in 1904.^[23]

Another early speeding ticket was issued in 1910 to Lady Laurier, the wife of Wilfrid Laurier, Prime Minister of Canada, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, for exceeding the 10 miles per hour speed limit.^[24]

The fastest convicted speeder in the UK was Daniel Nicks, convicted of 175 mph (282 km/h) on a Honda Fireblade motorcycle in 2000. He received six weeks in jail and was banned from driving for two full years.^[25] The fastest UK speeder in a car was Timothy Brady, caught driving a 3.6-litre Porsche 911 Turbo at 172 mph (277 km/h) on the A420 in Oxfordshire in January 2007 and jailed for 10 weeks and banned from driving for 3 years.^[26]

The most expensive speeding ticket ever given is believed to be the one given to Jussi Salonoja in Helsinki, Finland, in 2003. Salonoja, the 27-year-old heir to a company in the meat-industry, was fined 170,000 euros for driving 80 km/h in a 40 km/h zone. The uncommonly large fine was due to Finnish speeding tickets (when excess speed is considerable) being relative to the offender's last known income. Salonoja's speeding ticket was not the first ticket given in Finland reaching six figures.^[27]

• Assigned risk
• Automobile costs
• DoNotPay (mobile app for contesting tickets)
• Traffic police
• State police
• Highway patrol
• Traffic warden
• Traffic stop
• Jaywalking
• Moving violation
• Point system (driving)