It is suggested that the cumbersome necessity for a client to go to a solicitor before he can obtain access to first-class advice is an anachronism at this time. The inaccessibility of all persons has greatly diminished in recent years, with the result that to keep up the system of inaccessibility in respect of counsel is often both hard on the client and on counsel. It is one of the greatest barriers to the Bar as a means of livelihood. It renders a great profession a mere speculation, from the financial point of view. It hampers barristers who would otherwise be able to do as well as the average holder of a medical degree, something which does not apply at present. A doctor of medicine, a bachelor of medicine, or a person qualified by the conjoint diploma of the Colleges of Surgeons and Physicians, has a profession opened up to him which at least may be used to stave off starvation, but in the Bar degree there is no tangible reason why starvation should not be the very first obstacle encountered by the newly-called forensic aspirant. In practice, of course, members of the Bar are generally possessed of funds, great or little, but in theory there is no particular reason why a “gentleman of the long robe” should not be in some difficulty for the price of his dinner a week after his Call to the Bar! If one is attacked by illness, one does not send for a chemist or go to a chemist and instruct him to obtain a physician. One at once establishes direct relations with the medical adviser. Why should not this apply equally to the relations of client and counsel? To defend one’s interests, to secure one’s rights, to punish the wrong-doer, to advise, are among the functions of counsel. Why should he be cut off from a client by the obligations of professional etiquette? Why should professional etiquette exist which places the profession to which it refers at the mercy of another profession, quite separately and independently constituted? It is ridiculous to suggest that a barrister--unless he is extremely well-known, a financial leader of his profession--is selected by the solicitor’s client. The solicitor more often than not has the matter in his own hands. Certainly, there is nothing to prevent a client from going to a solicitor and naming his prospective counsel and insisting on the employment of such counsel, but it is not usual as the relations are worked in practice. It is partly due to the fact that the average client is so hopelessly out of his element in matters of law. He frequently goes to a solicitor in trepidation, to almost involuntarily submit to an uncomfortable process, which the solicitor selects or inflicts at his discretion. The law is not as a rule a recreation for anyone, save a few persons whose minds have been turned by years of litigation. Consequently, the uninitiated client trusts his solicitor implicitly. He is like wet clay in the hands of a potter. He does whatever is recommended. It