Tyler Alabanza-Behard
2025 Temple Bar Scholar
The Temple Bar Scholarship gifts insider access to “Legal London” and its key players. Over the course of one whirlwind month, we received a rigorous introduction to the English legal system—past and present—through candid briefings, tours of critical institutions, and placements at leading barristers’ chambers as well as the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
Lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic understand that the English and American legal systems share some common roots. But as an attorney developing a commercial practice, I noticed certain differences that make the two seem worlds apart.
Start with the courts. Housed within London’s Rolls Building, the United Kingdom’s Commercial Court resolves some of the most complex and significant business disputes arising under English law, many of which are international in scope. For the most part, cases are heard by specialist judges who sit on the Commercial Court because of their relevant prior experience. In the United States, specialized commercial courts are less influential. Although it’s true that some states have business courts, and that the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals, many important commercial disputes are destined for federal district courts and, in turn, generalist judges. Of course, parties in the United States can attempt to maneuver their way to courts with perceived commercial acumen, but considerations such as removal and transfer of venue make achieving this objective less straightforward than in the United Kingdom.
Next consider what it means to litigate. In the United States, attorneys can drum up business, write briefs, and argue in court. By contrast, the English legal system recognizes two kinds of lawyers—solicitors and barristers. Generally speaking, solicitors focus on the day-to-day of case management while barristers specialize in courtroom advocacy. These distinct roles reward different skillsets—sometimes subtly. For instance, solicitors develop business in the textbook American sense whereas barristers rely on their “clerks” (non-lawyers) to conjure up cases. Interestingly, solicitors can earn the right to argue in higher courts by qualifying as a “solicitor advocate.” On paper, this qualification allows solicitors to perform the core role of a barrister; however, it has not disrupted the traditional division of labor in complex commercial cases. All of this means that prospective commercial lawyers must think hard about the kind of practice they want to develop and the appropriate route. That’s a lot to ask (especially of undergraduates!).
And then there’s procedure, where differences between the two systems are most stark. For example, depositions are a rarity in the United Kingdom; written witness statements fulfil their evidentiary function. And when it comes to preparing those statements—and witness handling more generally—English law all but prohibits “coaching” in the American sense. But the most fundamental difference kicks in at trial. If civil jury trials are “vanishing” in the United States, they are functionally extinct in the United Kingdom. That’s not due to summary judgment, settlement, or some other kind of sieve. Instead, it’s a hallmark of English law, which doesn’t recognize the broad right Americans hold dear. By and large, the lawyers I met seemed confident in the English approach, especially in commercial matters. Why, they asked, would you entrust a highly technical dispute to Joe Bloggs or, for that matter, Joe Schmoe, his American counterpart? Better to let a learned judge take the reins, they explained. While such reasoning has intuitive appeal, it perhaps discounts the societal value that inheres in letting citizens evaluate alleged civil wrongdoing.
Lastly, location. For commercial lawyers in the United Kingdom, London is the undisputed epicenter of legal life. It’s home to the best law firms and barristers’ chambers, sophisticated clients across a range of industries, and key institutions such as the Commercial Court and the London Court of International Arbitration. So, what happens if a lawyer tires of London and wants to work in another fine British city (like Bristol, my favorite) without relinquishing an elite commercial practice? Because no other market provides similar opportunities, there’s no easy answer. This paradigm doesn’t play out in the United States. Although there’s room to quibble, cities like New York, Houston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C. (to name but a few) all claim comparably strong legal markets largely populated by the same major players. That’s why “Big Law” attorneys can move between these cities while remaining on the same compensation scale. Not so in the United Kingdom. When a commercial lawyer leaves London, they typically take a pay cut (though some, I gather, can have their cake and eat it thanks to remote work).
All in all, the Temple Bar Scholarship was formative from start to finish. As I look ahead to a career in commercial dispute resolution, I am grateful for the opportunity to think—deeply and comparatively—about two venerable jurisdictions and their different strengths. For making my time in London so enriching, I owe thanks to the American Inns of Court (including the indefatigable Cindy Dennis), the Commercial Bar Association, and the judges, barristers, solicitors, and industry leaders who contributed to our sophisticated itinerary.