Talk:Advocate

Merger of Advocate section under Barrister

• 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)

UK

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"

59.95.176.170 (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.

Scandinavia and Belgium

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)

Merge

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)

Ok then. (But merge it into barrister, would you.) Littledogboy (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Tanzania

Is the text on Tanzania, by any chance, COPYVIO? Littledogboy (talk) 11:44, 3 March 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)

External links modified

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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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/20120829024300/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000720/hall-1.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000720/hall-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513091027/http://www.johannesburgbar.co.za/groups.html to http://www.johannesburgbar.co.za/groups.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-Professional Advocates

User: SJö recently removed the statement that advocates could be professionals or non-professionals in the legal field. Whoever originally inserted that may have been thinking of "advocacy" in the sense of speaking to "authority" on behalf of those who can't do so effectively for themselves. In England and Wales, in recent years, voluntary (?) groups have been set up to provide Advocates to perform functions under the Mental Health Act or Mental Capacity Act, it being recognised that the family member named as "Nearest Relative" may have his/her own agenda. Social Workers no longer carry out this function as they represent the wishes and interests of the local authority. These people may have backgrounds in voluntary work or social care, and although they have some training are not lawyers (though a few are retired lawyers). I don't have enough up-to-date knowledge to say anything in the main article. There should be information in the Codes of Practice to these two Acts of Parliament. They should not be ignored, because they have the official designation of Mental Health Act Advocate or Mental Capacity Act Advocate. There are also Children's Advocates in various countries: I know much less about them. NRPanikker (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Advocacy in this sense is quite different from the profession exercised by the qualified lawyers who are the main subjects of the article, so there may be a case for having a separate article for them: with a link to this one, since this kind of advocate may also operate part in some fields where lawyers work.NRPanikker (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Brazil - Changes made to avoid opinionated speech

I removed a lot of the text on the Brazil section as it was mostly dedicated to defending the process as if it were under attack and comparing it to other countries, namely France and Brazi. I tried to make it more neutral in tone with my edits, but feel free to change it further.

I think there are some citations required as well, namely on that Law 8609 it refers to. I can't for the life of me find a place to cite that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VthompUWO (talk • contribs) 17:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Dangling ref

I have located a dangling ref and replaced it with a citation needed tag. This has been done because we have a reference pointing to a source that is not recorded in the article. Please feel free to contact me if you need assistance fixing this. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)