Directors of Public Prosecutions

The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is governed by the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1985. The Director must be a barrister or solicitor of at least ten years’ standing. This is an official appointment by the Attorney General with responsibility for the Crown Prosecution Service. This service, set up under the 1985 Act, is staffed by barristers and solicitors, certain of whom are designated Crown Prosecutors and Chief Crown Prosecutors (who are responsible for the service in each area in England and Wales).

The Director, in his or her capacity as head of the Service, is responsible for all criminal proceedings on behalf of the police (other than minor criminal offences). He or she must also conduct all binding-over proceedings instigated on behalf of the police force and any other proceedings where, because of the importance, difficulty or otherwise of the case, may be considered necessary.

Just for fun A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer. *** “You seem to be in some distress,” said the judge to the witness. “Is anything wrong?” “Well, your Honour,” said the witness, “I swore to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but every time I try, some lawyer objects!” *** A man had been convicted of theft on circumstantial evidence. When the case was sent for appeal, he revealed to his lawyer that he had been in prison at the time of the crime committed. “Good Heavens, man!” said the lawyer. “Why on earth didn’t you reveal that fact at the trial?” “Well,” said the man, “I thought it might prejudice the jury against me.” *** A man accused of stealing a watch was acquitted on insufficient evidence. Outside the courtroom he approached his lawyer and said, “What does that mean – acquitted?” “It means,” said the lawyer, “that the court has found you innocent. You are free to go.” “Does it mean I can keep the watch?” asked the client. *** First juror: “We shouldn’t be here very long. One look at those two fellows convinces me that they are guilty.” Second juror: “Not so loud, you fool! That’s counsel for the prosecution and counsel for the defense!”

 

 

LEGAL PROFESSION IN THE USA

 

Warming-up:

Are there different kinds of lawyers in your country? If so, define them.

Can you describe the way lawyers become qualified to practice law in Ukraine?

Outline the main functions of a lawyer in Ukraine.

Vocabulary notes:

attorney	аторней, уповноважений, юрист, адвокат
trial court adjunct	помічник суду першої інстанції
grist	зерно, кількість
bench	суд, судді, склад суду, судова присутність
promotional pattern	система просування по службі
litigator	спеціаліст, який проводить судовий процес
office lawyer	судовий виконавець
counsel	адвокат, який бере участь у справі
promise	договірний обов’язок
litigant	сторона судового процесу
adversary	протилежна сторона судового процесу
the American Bar Association	Американська асоціація адвокатів
legislature	законодавча влада
affiliate	входити до складу, приєднувати(ся)
eligible	той, який має право
reciprocity	взаємність

JUDGES IN THE USA

The multitudinous judicial systems in the United States are operated by a variety of persons. Judges are at the core of any court system. They are the decision makers, the key officials around whom all else is arranged. However, there is a vast supporting cast. Most intimately connected with the judges are those who assist them in the process of deciding issues and cases: law clerks, staff attorneys, and trial court adjuncts. Beyond these are the clerical and administrative personnel: secretaries, clerks of court and their staffs, judicial educators, and court administrators. Outside the court systems are numerous organizations whose functions are to assist the courts in various ways. Finally, there are the lawyers who present cases, thus supplying the grist for the judicial mill.

Because American judges sit on courts of widely varying types and come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences, it is difficult to generalize about them. Two generalizations, however, are possible. First, judges in the United States initially come to the bench from other lines of legal work and after a substantial number of years of professional experience. Second, once on the bench they do not, in the main, follow a promotional pattern through the ranks of the judiciary.

Compared to the English and civil-law systems of judicial recruitment and promotion, the methods used in the United States are quite varied. These procedures generally lack means of assuring professional quality. Moreover, the American judges’ backgrounds are much more diverse than those of the English and civil-law judges. With the relatively minor exception of some lay judges on state courts of limited jurisdiction, all American judges have studied law and been licensed to practice law.

Although most judges have actually practiced law, the nature of that practice can be quite varied. Many judges have been litigators, but some have been office lawyers or counsel to organizations such as corporations or private associations. The types of law practice that judges have experienced range from small-town general practice to specialized fields in large metropolitan firms. Numerous judges have been lawyers in government service as prosecuting attorneys or counsel to government agencies, either state or federal. Some judges are former law professors, but their number is small. Many judges have earlier been active in political affairs, often as legislators, political campaign managers, or party committee members or chairmen. Indeed, many American judges can be described as former lawyer-politicians.

Another feature of the American judiciary that sharply distinguishes it from that of civil-law countries and other common-law countries is that persons can enter the judicial system at any level. A lawyer can initially become a judge on the highest court, the lowest court, or any in between. There is no system or pattern about this. In other words, a lawyer who has never been a judge can become a judge on a court of last resort or an intermediate appellate court or trial court, in either a state or the federal system. Lawyers who come on the bench at the trial or intermediate appellate levels have no real promise of moving to a higher court, although some may have hopes in that regard. Some judges do move up, but most spend their entire judicial careers on the same court. There is no system of promotion and no substantial sentiment among American lawyers, judges, or politicians that such a system would be desirable.

LAWYERS

It is a longstanding tradition in the Anglo-American legal world that anyone can represent himself in court. But contemporary law and judicial procedure are so complicated that it is unrealistic for a litigant to represent himself in any but the simplest matters. Lawyers are essential to ensure the full and fair presentation of cases. American courts, being passive agencies in the common-law tradition, depend on lawyers to present the litigants’ positions and to develop the evidence and the legal arguments. Under the adversary system it is each lawyer’s obligation to present his client’s case to the court vigorously and completely. Lawyers are thus an integral part of the machinery of justice.

In the United States admission to the practice of law and the governance of the legal profession are matters of state concern. One can speak accurately, for example, of “the Virginia bar” or “the Texas bar” or “the Illinois bar”, meaning the lawyers in each of those states who have licensed by those states. There is no national or federal authority to admit persons to the legal profession. The entity known as the American Bar Association is a private, voluntary, nationwide organization of some 370,000 lawyers from all states; it is the largest organization of lawyers in the country, although there are many other private bar associations, often based on areas of legal specialization.

In each state the requirements for admission to the bar are set by the Supreme Court or the legislature or the two acting together. Typically graduation from an accredited law school is required; there are more than 170 such schools in the United States, almost all affiliated with universities. Law school requires a three-year course of study after a student has attended college for four years and received a bachelor’s degree. Law school graduates are awarded the degree of Juris Doctor (J.D.). They are then eligible to take a state bar examination, a written examination lasting two or three days. These examinations are usually administered by a body of lawyers, known as bar examiners, acting under the authority of the state’s Supreme Court. Applicants who pass the bar examination and who also meet the requisite standards of character are admitted into the bar by that court.

Within the legal profession there is no formal division; there are no barristers or solicitors. Anyone admitted to the bar in a state is legally authorized to engage in any kind of legal practice in that state. As a practical matter, there is an increasing degree of specialization among lawyers. Typical areas of specialization are litigation, taxation, labor law, patent law, family law, trusts and estates, and various branches of administrative law.

A lawyer admitted to one state’s bar can practice in another state only if he gets admitted in that state or that state recognizes the original state’s admission. This kind of reciprocity is accorded in some states but not in all.

⇐ Предыдущая21222324252627282930Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: