Although in the United States, anyone admitted to the bar of any of the fifty states may label himself or herself as a "barrister," such is not the case in Britain. The American lawyer can usurp the title notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. "barrister" may never have appeared in a courtroom and has no intention of doing so. The fact that a lawyer advertises as a "barrister" does not mean that he or she is, in the true sense.

So far as limitations on practice are concerned, one "surfing the web" for a United States attorney may locate the lawyer that ideally fits the searcher's needs, only to discover that the lawyer is practicing in a different state, and has not been admitted to practice in the state where the surfer wishes the legal services be provided. Aside from the logistic problems that this presents, the lack of admission to the local bar can usually be overcome. If the case is proceeding in the federal courts, the attorney, on the authority of his or her admission to practice by one of the fifty states, can apply to be admitted to the bar of any federal court. Oftentimes, this is done as late as the day of trial. If the subject case is pending in a state court other than the state in which the sought after attorney is admitted to practice, the attorney can ordinarily obtain permission from the court to litigate the claim of the person seeking his employment, i.e., the attorney is admitted pro hac vice, a Latin term meaning "for this one particular occasion." The "one particular occasion" in this instance would be that one particular case. In most instances local counsel is employed to attend to short or insignificant court appearances and to assist with the pleadings and at time of trial.

This very issue resulted in the California Supreme Court halting a somewhat notorious murder trial in which Mr. Carrow was lead defense counsel. The case drew media interest because it involved the removal from the bench in the course of trial and the death of a judge. Mr. Carrow was appointed to represent the defendant who was accused of murder, kidnaping and conspiracy arising out of the incident. In addition to the judge, two San Quentin prison inmates and the young man who smuggled guns into the courtroom, died in the melee. In the course of the approximately nine month trial, Mr. Carrow's associate counsel withdrew and Mr. Carrow sought permission of the trial judge to associate Mr. Ramsey Clark, a former Attorney General of the United States, but not admitted to the California bar, to assist him for the remainder of the trial. The request was denied. On application, the California Supreme Court stopped the trial and directed the trial judge, by a 7-0 vote, to reconsider his decision (Magee v. Superior Court 8 Cal.3d 949). Mr. Clark participated pro hac vice and pro bono for the remainder of the trial. A criminal trial had not previously been interrupted in California by an appellate court for any purpose and none has since.

The Magee case underscores the judicially recognized principle that the litigant should have the right, with certain limitations, to choose his or her lawyer, even when the selected lawyer is not licensed to practice in the client's state.

Certain limitations are placed upon the practice of a barrister by The Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales. In summary form, a barrister admitted to the bar may take instructions, i.e., accept employment, from certain categories of professionals, including solicitors for matters involving British litigation, or any other matters. With regard to matters not involving British litigation, barristers may deal directly with accountants, licensed conveyancers and surveyors, any person qualified and practicing as a lawyer outside the United Kingdom and any lay person who carries on business or lives outside the United Kingdom. The Code of Conduct allows the barrister to perform outside the United Kingdom legal work for any person duly qualified and actively practicing as a lawyer abroad and for any lay client relating to matters which arose or took place outside the United Kingdom.

It is essential that the lawyer you select has the professional ability to perform the task assigned him or her in a satisfactory manner. In the U.S., qualification requirements vary substantially from state to state. It is generally agreed that the bar examinations in California are the most difficult in the United States. This is probably due in part to the threat of thousands of lawyers who have reached retirement age moving to California , to practice on a part time basis and enjoy the wonders of that beautiful state. Many states offer reciprocity, i.e., if you qualify (pass the bar) in one state, you are automatically eligible to be admitted in the other state. California offers reciprocity with no other state in the union.

It is difficult to ascertain the courtroom skills of the person you tentatively select, either because you are unacquainted with anyone in the area where the lawyer practices or, if acquainted, your acquaintance(s) have no meaningful knowledge of the expertise possessed by the various members of the bar. Since most attorneys are not litigators, they have not witnessed a sufficient number of their colleagues in action to make an informed recommendation. Oftentimes, the most you can obtain is the name of a person known to practice litigation, without reference to ability.

Martindale-Hubbell, which has been published continuously for 129 years, provides anyone searching for legal help in the U.S. with an excellent reference tool, since it has already performed the foot-work, in a scientifically reliable manner. This prestigious 25 volume publication lists virtually all of the attorneys practicing in the U.S., and provides substantial information on their background. Martindale-Hubbell also rates lawyers, both as to "legal ability" and "general recommendation," the latter relating primarily to the attorney's ethical and "professional reliability" reputation in the community. The information upon which the ratings are based is provided by local judges who observe the lawyers in action and members of the local bar who have already attained a high rating. The legal "ability" ratings range from "A" to "C," with "A" being the highest. "V" evidences the highest "general recommendation." Approximately 11% of the practicing bar hold "AV" ratings. Mr. Carrow has held an "AV" rating rating since 1979. In addition, he is listed in the Martindale-Hubbell Bar Register of Preeminent Attorneys, recentely published, which is limited to 3% of the practicing bar.