|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
- I support a merge. A barrister is not a member of the faculty of advocates and vice versa. The advocate information should be removed from where it is in the barrister section. It is true that a Barrister is an advocate but they are not Advocates. Francis Davey 19:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The entry is sufficiently long already. Barrister shouldn't be used as a generic term for counsel.
I also agree. Although "barrister" is often used in Scotland incorrectly amongst laypersons, we should not encourage such confusion. There are other countries in Europe that have court specialists and they do not use the term barrister. Lucifer(sc) 18:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Merger of Faculty of Advocates with Advocate
- I suggested merge on the basis that, again, there appears to be much specific information in the Faculty page that could be better incorporated in the Advocate page, e.g. regarding training. The Faculty page is rather eclectic and needs wikification so this may kill two birds. Lucifer(sc) 17:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support this would clarify the situation and give the information on one page. Davidkinnen 07:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
This article seems to focus on the UK. Why is that? Advocate is the title of a type of lawyer (Barrister in England) in many English-speaking countries, such as the USA and South Africa. Joziboy 6 May 2006, 12:18 (UTC)
Fully agree. While description of national regimes may be relevant, "advocate" is a generic term for a professional legal attorney in the whole world. I believe the article should have a "general" part describing the nature and common aspects of the job (which are many) and then focus on national schemes. --Cpt pickard (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Undid personal information insertion @ "Atul Jaiswal"
22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Someone inserted personal information for one 'Atul Jaiswal', which was quite irrelevant for the page, and was like a personal advertisement. Hence, that was deleted. Wikipedia is not for ADVERSITING.
The inclusion of these countries here is wrong. The Dutch word is "advocaat", which is not at all conventionally translated as "advocate" in English. In fact, I have read a memo from the Flemish Law Society saying specifically that the translation should NOT be "advocate". I suspect the same is true for the Scandinavian equivalent "advokat". I think it highly unlikely that any lawyer in Copenhagen or Stockholm is using the English word "advocate". This should all be removed from the text by someone who works regularly on this article. Schildewaert (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
TYPES OF ADVOCATES IN PAKISTAN
We the young advocates in Pakistan stand against this judicial discrimination where the judges dispense justice basing on seniority of Advocate representing one party and so the basic object of court system is killed by its own protector.
Moreover these classifictaions are only in Pakistan and destroying not only justice system but also the business of lawyers. Creating monopolies and mafia of old lawyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The1from3rddim (talk • contribs) 17:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
No. From the global point of view, in civil law countries often both solicitor and barrister are called advocate (eg Czech Republic). Therefore, do not merge with barrister. Littledogboy (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- But that's a different meaning of the word than the one used in the article. This article is all about common law systems. MergerDude (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/thetortofnegligence.pdf and http://lst.ac.tz/academics/programmes.php and others. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Advocate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201105741/http://jus2.uol.com.br:80/doutrina/texto.asp?id=6208 to http://jus2.uol.com.br/doutrina/texto.asp?id=6208
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304035229/http://sisnet.aduaneiras.com.br/lex/doutrinas/arquivos/advocacia.pdf to http://sisnet.aduaneiras.com.br/lex/doutrinas/arquivos/advocacia.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010141208/http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/other/husbands-final.rtf to http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/other/husbands-final.rtf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
Archived sources still need to be checked