bar: 1) n. collectively all attorneys, as ”the bar,” which comes from the bar or railing which separates the general spectator area of the courtroom from the area reserved for judges, attorneys, parties and court officials. A party to a case or criminal defendant is ”before the bar” when he/she is inside the railing. 2) v. to prevent some legal maneuver, as in ”barring” a lawsuit due to the running of the time to file. 3) to prohibit and keep someone from entering a room, building, or real property.
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
– – – –
A bar association is a professional body of lawyers. Some bar associations are responsible for the regulation of the legal profession in their jurisdiction; Others are professional organizations dedicated to serving their members; in many cases, they are both. In many Commonwealth jurisdictions, the bar association comprises lawyers who are qualified as barristers or advocates in particular, versus solicitors (see bar council). Membership in bar associations may be mandatory or optional for practicing attorneys, depending on jurisdiction.
– – – –
A voluntary bar association is a private organization of lawyers. However, the membership may not be restricted only to registered lawyers. The membership can extend to people interested in goals and purpose of the Association. Each Association chooses its own purposes (e.g., social, educational, and lobbying functions), but does not regulate the practice of law or admit lawyers to practice.
– – – –
The Federal Bar Association is a private, voluntary group.
– – – –
Judges may or may not be members of the bar. Etymologically, they sit ”on the bench”, and the cases which come before them are ”at bar” or ”at bench”. Many states in the United States require that some or all judges be members of the bar; typically these limit or completely prohibit the judges from practicing law while serving as a judge.
– – – –
court of law
n. any tribunal within a judicial system. Under English common law and in some states it was a court which heard only lawsuits in which damages were sought, as distinguished from a court of equity which could grant special remedies. That distinction has dissolved and every court (with the exception of federal bankruptcy courts) is a court of law.
Poimintoja netistä
Dear Mr Riissanen
Thank you for your email to the International Bar Association which I have now had an opportunity to review fully. The description you provide of the concepts of ‘attorney at law’ and ‘voluntary bar association’ reflect similar situations found in many jurisdictions around the world. The International Bar Association cannot express any particular preference as to how the phrase ‘attorney at law’ is made given that we bring together over 150 jurisdictions, each of which will have their own level of regulation of the profession. Therefore, the direct matter of the dispute with the Finnish Bar Association is not something that we can assist with or comment on.
What the IBA does aim to do is set standards by which we hope that anyone undertaking legal work will strive to achieve. We have a range of Guidelines and Resolutions passed by the IBA Council on which around 200 bar associations are represented and we encourage all our member bars, both regulatory and voluntary to use these documents. You can access all of the documents at: http://www.ibanet.org/barassociations/BIC_resources.aspx
I can acknowledge that the general topic of who can practise law is a very ‘hot’ issue and in fact the IBA will have a Showcase session on this theme at the IBA’s Annual Conference in Vienna this October. Entitled ‘Blurred Lines – what does it mean to be a lawyer in the 21st century? We will examine the many different regulatory approaches that now exist to permit the ‘practice of law’ by non-lawyers, accountants, listed companies, legal service providers, multidisciplinary firms and many other alternatives. Where there are any points of consensus, we may carry out further research to see if the IBA can provide any further guidelines that address these regulatory issues.
Yours sincerely
Margery Nicoll
Chair BIC
Description: Description: Description: IBA logo email signature
To International Bar Association / Margery Nicoll (6.2.2015)
Dear Madam
In Finland, there are now two groups of private counsels that can represent a party at courts which give verdicts in criminal and civil matters:
1) advocates, that have been accepted to general Bar association by the board of that association and
2) attorneys, that have been given a special lisence by a board nominated by our governement.
Finland has not monopolized counselling or representing a party to advocates only.
Finland does not have a common law tradition.
Some lawyers that have acquired the lisence have recently founded an association for lisencees.
They do not want to belong to the general Bar association for a reason or another.
The new association is called Auktorisoidut Lakimiehet – Auktoriserade Jurister – Authorized Attorneys at Law.
The name has been approved by the finnish registry officials.
We have now a dispute in Finland about how those not Advocates are allowed to call themselves in an international context.
The Finnish Bar association has started a court case against our association claiming that our name shouldnt include words ”authorized” , ”attorneys” or ”attorneys at law” or ”authorized attorneys at law”. The general Bar association claims even so that no other person in Finland than an advocate (a member of the general bar association in Finland) can call him/herself as ”attorney” or ”attorney at law”.
Going through different dictionaries and translations of laws it appears that the words ”attorney at law” and ”attorney” have not been reserved to advocates – members of the general Bar association. They seem to be
general terms that express the capability of a person to represent a party.
Lisenced attorneys are allowed to do that. In our opinion we can also consider us to be authorized because the special board has authorized us to represent parties at the court of law.
It would be interesting to get an opinion from your association: do you think that no one else but an advocate can call him/herself an attorney – or attorney at law?
We would also be delighted if you could give us an opinion whether we are allowed to call our association a voluntary Bar association.
The case against our association has been filed by the general Bar association at Helsinki district court. Oral hearing has not been confirmed yet.
Best regards
—
Auktorisoidut Lakimiehet – Auktoriserade Jurister – Authorized Attorneys at Law ry
Luvan saaneiden oikeudenkäyntiavustajien yhdistys – förening för rättegångsbiträden med tillstånd – association of licensed attorneys (not in the Bar)