Table of Contents

MÔ HÌNH BẢO HIẾN PHÁP vs ĐỨC vs MỸ (constitutional protection authorities).................................................1

CẤU TRÚC NGUỒN LUẬT ANH vs MỸ.....................................................................................................................4
NGUYÊN TẮC 3 QUYỀN PHÂN LẬP TRONG HP MỸ.............................................................................................7
HỆ THỐNG TÒA ÁN ANH............................................................................................................................................9
II. BÌNH LUẬN VỀ HỆ THỐNG TÒA ÁN ANH........................................................................................................11
THE UK AND THE US LEGAL EDUCATION..........................................................................................................13
THE UK AND THE US LEGAL PROFESSION.........................................................................................................16
THE UK AND THE US COURT SYSTEMS...............................................................................................................18
THE GERMANY AND THE FRENCH COURT SYSTEMS......................................................................................23
THE GERMANY AND THE US LEGAL EDUCATION............................................................................................27
THE GERMANY AND THE UK LEGAL PROFESSION..........................................................................................30
THE FRENCH AND THE US LEGAL PROFESSION...............................................................................................34
Legal profession in France and the UK.........................................................................................................................36

MÔ HÌNH BẢO HIẾN PHÁP vs ĐỨC vs MỸ (constitutional protection authorities)

II. Constitutional protection authorities in France, German and the US under comparision
1. Similarities
First of all, Constitutional protection models in these countries are aimed to examine and monitor
the constitutionality and legality of legal documents, detect and resolve authority issues between state
authorities and authorized people, …

1
 Secondly, these models are built on the foundation of the Popular Sovereignty doctrine.
Accordingly, the people are the highest subject of power, but in reality, they cannot directly enforce
all their power. Through the Constitution, they authorize the State to represent their will and
aspirations.
Thirdly, these models are built on the principle of the Separation of powers, that is, the power of
the State is divided among many different agencies such as the legislature, the executive, judicial
authorities…
Fourthly, these models are independent institutions, to ensure the objectivity and fairness in their
decisions.
2. Differences
2.1. Constitutional protection model
- French: is Centralised constitutional control, Constitutional protection functions were assigned
to a specialized agency called Constitutional Council (Conseil Constitutionnel) and it is not a Court.
- German: is Centralised constitutional control, Constitutional protection functions were also
assigned to a specialized agency called Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht).
- US: is Decentralised constitutional control. In this model, there is no specialized agency to
enforce the constitutional protection functions function and the authority to oversee the Constitution
is given to the Courts of general jurisdiction.
2.3. Oganization
- French: The Constitutional Council shall comprise nine members, each of whom shall hold
office for a non-renewable term of 09 years. 1/3 of the membership of the Constitutional Council shall
be renewed every three years. Three of its members shall be appointed by the President of the
Republic, three by the President of the National Assembly and three by the President of the Senate. In
addition to the nine members provided for above, former Presidents of the Republic shall be ex officio
life members of the Constitutional Council. The office of member of the Constitutional Council shall
be incompatible with that of Minister or Member of the Houses of Parliament. Other incompatibilities
shall be determined by an Institutional Act.
- German: The Federal Constitutional Court shall consist of federal judges and other members.
The members of the Federal Constitutional Court shall be elected half by the Bundestag and half by
the Bundesrat. “They may not belong to the Bundestag, the Bundesrat, the Federal Government or
corresponding bodies of a Land”.
The court consists of two senates, each of which has eight members, headed by a senate's
chairman. The members of each senate are allocated to three chambers for hearings in constitutional
complaint and single regulation control cases. Each chamber consists of three judges, so each senate
chairman is at the same time a member of two chambers.
The judges are elected for a 12-year term, but they must retire upon reaching the age of 68, a re-
election is not possible. A judge must be at least 40 years old and must be a well-trained jurist. Three
2
out of eight members of each senate have served as a judge on one of the federal courts. Of the other
five members of each senate, most judges previously served as an academic jurist at a university, as a
public servant or as a lawyer. After ending their term, most judges withdraw themselves from public
life. 
- US: Supreme Court of the US is the highest court in the judicial system and is the only court
established under the provisions of the Constitution, with an unlimited number of judges, the
organizational structure is not clearly defined by the Constitution. Justices of the US Supreme Court
are appointed by the President for life subject to confirmation by the upper house of the US
Congressm the Senate (the lower house is the House of Representatives). In fact, professional
qualifications, political qualities, luck… are crucial factors to determined who will hold the position
Justices of the Supreme Court. General, this is an illustration of the cherished control mechanism in
the constitution- check and balances- between the legislative, executive and judicial powers.
Thus, in France and Germany do not allow judges to have a lifetime term like the US. Its
disadvantage is that if the judge knows that he/she can not be replaced in the whole life, the quality of
the work will also be worse than the certain term.
2.4. Scope
- French: The Constitutional Council shall ensure the proper conduct of the election of the
President of the Republic, referendum proceedings, examine Institutional Acts and the Rules of
Procedure of the Houses of Parliament before coming into force. Moreover, the Constitutional
Council can, for instance, state theat a proposed statue is in conflict with the Constitution, however it
only considers the matter on the application of the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, the
chairman of either of the French Parliament’s two chamber (the President of the National Assembly
and the President of the Senate), or a group of at least 60 members of either chamber.
- German: German law clearly allocates the types of cases to be resolved in each Court.
Accordingly, cases related to the relationship between the State and citizens are bestowed to the
"First Court", while the "Second Court" will handle cases related to the relationship between
departments and branches of power are different within the State. Usually, the Court will be
responsible for resolving people's complaints about administrative judgments, decisions or actions;
unless the claim involves the constitutionality of legal documents.
- US: The Supreme Court has the authority to evaluate the constitutionality of legal documents,
explain the constitution, resolve jurisdictional disputes between entities in the State of the Union...
The Supreme Court will not be allowed to repeal an unconstitutional law, only to be repealed when a
new law is introduced by Parliament to replace that law and in fact, that law is no longer valid.
III. Explain the differences between the three Constitutional protection authorities of French,
German and American
There are many reasons lead to the differences between the three constitional protection
authorities like:
3
 Firstly, historically, the constitional protection authority in US has had a quite long history (from
1803 until now), while this institution in German and French was established after the World War II.
Secondly, the legal system of US belongs to Common Law system, while the German and
French’s legal system belong to Civil Law.
Thirdly, the US applies the rigid decentralization principle, Germany applies the soft
decentralization principle, and France is the mixed decentralization principle (intermediary).

CẤU TRÚC NGUỒN LUẬT ANH vs MỸ

I. Những điểm tương đồng và khác biệt trong cấu trúc nguồn luật của hệ thống pháp luật
Anh và Mỹ
1. Những điểm tương đồng
Thứ nhất, đối với Án lệ, hai quốc gia này đều coi Án lệ là nguồn luật được sử dụng phổ
biến nhất, chiếm ưu thế hơn so với luật thành văn. Án lệ của Anh và Mỹ đều có chung nguyên tắc
“Stare decisis”, có nghĩa là tuân thủ các phán quyết trước đó, có sự ràng buộc giữa các phán
quyết của các tòa án với nhau, đều được ghi chép, xuất bản để sử dụng.
Thứ hai, Cả Anh và Mỹ đều thừa nhận và sử dụng các tác phẩm của các học giả pháp lý
giống như là một nguồn luật. Các tác phẩm này là những cuốn sách giành cho sinh viên và các
chuyên gia luật. Các tác phẩm này thường được trích dẫn bởi các luật sư và thẩm phán trong quá
trình hành nghề luật.
Thứ ba, Luật thành văn hiện nay cũng ngày càng được coi trọng hơn trong hệ thống
nguồn luật của hai quốc gia.
2. Những điểm khác biệt
số lượng nguồn luật của HTPL Anh vẫn có sự phong phú hơn Mỹ. Ở chỗ, trong khi Mỹ
chỉ có 03 loại nguồn (bao gồm: Án lệ, Luật thành văn và các tác phẩm của học gia pháp lý), thì
Anh lại có tới 5 loại (gồm: Án lệ, Luật thành văn, Luật Liên minh Châu Âu, Tập quán pháp địa
phương và các tác phẩm có uy tín). Thứ bậc áp dụng các loại nguồn ở hai quốc gia này cũng có
sự khác nhau. Ở Anh, án lệ được ưu tiên áp dụng đầu tiên. Trong quá trình áp dụng, cần phần biệt
hai phần của bản án: ratio decidendi (phần lí do hay nguyên tắc để ra phán quyết) và obiter
dictum (phần bình luận của thẩm phán). Nếu không có án lệ liên quan thì thẩm phán sẽ áp dụng
án lệ có bản chất gần gũi nhất với vụ việc đang giải quyết. Nếu không có án lệ nào có thể áp dụng
thì sẽ ưu tiên áp dụng luật thành văn tiếp theo. Tuy được ưu tiên áp dụng sau án lệ nhưng luật do
Nghị viện ban hành có hiệu lực cao hơn án lệ do thẩm phán làm ra. Luật thường được ban hành
để bổ sung hoặc thay thế án lệ, có thể phủ nhận hiệu lực trong tương lai của một án lệ và thâm chí
4
còn có hiệu lực hồi tố làm cho bản án đã tuyên trong quá khứ trở nên vô hiệu. Đối với các nguồn
luật còn lại, thứ bậc ưu tiên áp dụng ở Anh như sau: Luật Liên minh Châu Âu, Tập quán pháp địa
phương, các tác phẩm có uy tín. Ở Mỹ, theo thứ bậc ưu tiên thì luật thành văn ở vị trí đầu trong
đó Hiến pháp của Mỹ là Hiến pháp thành văn nên các văn bản luật đều phải tuân theo Hiến pháp,
tiếp đến là việc áp dụng án lệ, cuối cùng là các tác phẩm của học gia pháp lý.
Cụ thể, trong một số loại nguồn cụ thể ta có thể nhận thấy một số điểm khác biệt như sau:
- Án lệ: Ở Anh, án lệ được đặc biệt coi trọng và áp dụng một cách tuyệt đối, còn ở Mỹ thì
hạn chế hơn, chỉ chấp nhận thụ động án lệ như một thứ cứng nhắc và ra đời từ rất lâu không phù
hợp với người Mỹ. Nguyên tắc “stare decisis” ở Anh được thực hiện chặt chẽ, khắt khe hơn.
Theo pháp luật Anh, án lệ của cấp trên có tính bắt buộc đối với cấp dưới và ngay cả chính mình.
Vì vậy, các thẩm phán ở Anh không muốn phủ nhận những phán quyết trước đó của mình hoặc
đào sâu hơn khi xét xử vụ án, vì vậy việc phát triển Án lệ ở Anh còn chậm chạp và chỉ trong
những giới hạn quy định. Trong khi đó ở Mỹ, phán quyết của các tòa án tối cao ở cấp bang và
liên bang không chịu sự ràng buộc của chính mình; tòa án bang không bị bắt buộc tuân thủ án lệ
của các tòa án ở các bang khác. Tuy nhiên, phán quyết của một tòa án tối cao của bang về ý nghĩa
một đạo luật của bang nơi có tòa án đó sẽ có giá trị ràng buộc mọi nơi, miễn là phán quyết đó của
tòa án bang không mâu thuẫn với Hiến pháp và pháp luật của liên bang
- Hiến Pháp: Anh không có hiến pháp thành văn còn Mỹ thì ngược lại. Các quy định có
bản chất của hiến pháp Anh có thể tìm thấy trong đặc quyền Hoàng gia, trong một số truyền
thống, án lệ cũng như văn bản pháp luật do Nghị viện ban hành. Magna Carta năm 1215 được coi
là bản hiến pháp đầu tiên của Anh, thừa nhận quyền con người. Ngày nay, một số đạo luật quan
trọng làm thành Hiến pháp Anh phải kể đến gồm: Luật quyền con người năm 1688, Luật kế vị
ngai vàng năm 1701, Luật đình quyền giam giữ năm 1679, Luật hợp nhất với Scotland 1707 và
gần đây nhất là Luật Cộng đồng châu Âu.
Trong khi đó, ở Mỹ, Liên bang và các bang đều có hiến pháp viết. Hiến pháp Mỹ được
ban hành vào năm 1787 và được coi là đạo luật cơ bản của quốc gia. Do đó, bất kể nguồn luật
nào trên nước Mỹ đều không được trái với nội dung Hiến pháp.
- Luật: Các VBPL ở Anh gồm: VBPL do Nghị viện trực tiếp ban hành và VBPL Nghị
viện ủy quyền ban hành. Luật do Nghị viện ban hành có hiệu lực cao hơn án lệ do thẩm phán làm
ra. Luật thường bổ sung hay thay thế án lệ. Các VBPL địa phương do chính quyền địa phương
ban hành. Một số luật được áp dụng trên khắp Vương quốc Anh, một số luật chỉ áp dụng riêng tại
một trong 04 vùng England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland.

5
 Ở Mỹ, có rất nhiều đạo luật cả ở cấp Liên bang và cấp Bang. Ngoài Hiến pháp Mỹ, các
đạo luật do Quốc hội Mỹ thông qua có giá trị pháp lý cao nhất, cao hơn phán quyết của Tòa án
cấp Liên bang và cấp Bang và cao hơn các đạo luật tương ứng của các Bang. Mỗi Bang của Mỹ
đều có quyền ban hành luật riêng áp dụng trong Bang.

Cấu trúc hệ thống nguồn luật Anh đa dạng, phong phú hơn cấu trúc hệ thống nguồn luật
Mỹ và vai trò của các loại nguồn khác nhau trong cấu trúc nguồn của hai hệ thống pháp luật này
là cũng không giống nhau.
II. Nguyên nhân dẫn đến sự tương đồng và khác biệt
Sở dĩ cấu trúc nguồn luật của hệ thống pháp luật của Anh và Mỹ có nhiều điểm tương
đồng với nhau vì cả hai nước đều có hệ thống pháp luật thuộc dòng họ Common law. Lý do là
bởi về mặt lịch sử trước đây Mỹ từng là thuộc địa của Anh trong một khoảng thời gian dài (từ
khoảng sau năm 1600 cho đến 1781). Sau khi giành được độc lập thì tại Mỹ đã có sự đấu tranh
quyết liệt giữa hai trường phái, một bên ủng hộ Common law của Anh còn một bên ủng hộ pháp
điển hóa. Tuy nhiên vì trong khoảng thời gian còn là thuộc địa, đã có rất nhiều người từ châu Âu
di chuyển tới Mỹ để sinh sống trong đó phần lớn là tới từ Anh, vì Common law đã ăn sâu vào
tiềm thức của những người dân Anh ở Mỹ do đó dẫn tới việc khó có thể hoàn toàn dứt bỏ mô
hình hệ thống pháp luật này, do đó hệ thống pháp luật Mỹ cuối cùng vẫn thuộc dòng họ Common
law.
nguyên chủ yếu dẫn tới sự khác biệt này là:
Thứ nhất là về vị trí địa lý, khác với Mỹ- một quốc gia rộng lớn tại Châu Mỹ thì Anh là
một quốc đảo thuộc châu Âu. Do đó khi tham gia vào Liên minh châu Âu (EU) vào năm 1972 thì
bên cạnh các án lệ và các văn bản pháp luật trong nước, Luật của EU đã trở thành một trong
những nguồn luật chính của nước Anh còn Mỹ thì không. Hiện nay, vì Anh đã chính thức chấm
dứt tư cách thành viên trong EU nên nguồn luật của nước này đã thu hẹp do không chịu ảnh
hưởng từ Luật EU nữa. Tuy nhiên, một số thỏa thuận giữa EU, các nước thành viên và bên thứ ba
vẫn có thể ràng buộc Anh quốc tùy theo điều khoản đã thỏa thuận, ý chí các bên ký kết cũng như
của Anh quốc thể hiện trong đàm phán .
Thứ hai, ở Anh không có Hiến pháp thành văn, mà Anh gọi là Hiến pháp chỉ là tổng thể
các quy phạm có nguồn gốc luật thành văn hoặc nguồn luật án lệ còn ở Mỹ lại có một bản Hiến
pháp Liên bang. Lý giải cho sự khác nhau này là vì Anh là quốc gia có bề dày truyền thống, hơn
nữa nguyên tắc Stare decisis lại là xương sống của pháp luật Anh (nghĩa là án lệ phải được tôn
trọng). Còn ở Mỹ thì phải xây dựng bản Hiến pháp thành văn là vì bản thân Mỹ là một nhà nước

6
liên bang, việc có một bản Hiến pháp Liên bang chung cho các bang sẽ giúp dung hòa hơn về mặt
lợi ích giữa các tiểu bang.
Thứ ba, đây là hai quốc gia độc lập, có nền kinh tế, chế độ chính trị, xã hội… khác nhau.
Mỹ là một quốc gia trẻ, dân cư chủ yếu là nhập cư, đa sắc tộc, đa tôn giáo, dẫn tới xã hội có sự
trộn lẫn các nền văn hóa từ nhiều nơi trên thế giới. Điều này dẫn tới việc có tập quán được một số
cộng đồng người chấp nhận nhưng lại bị phủ nhận bởi các cộng đồng người khác trong cùng địa
phương, do đó tập quán địa phương không được coi là một nguồn luật của hệ thống pháp luật ở
Mỹ. Ngược lại, Anh là một quốc gia lâu đời, là một quốc gia có truyền thống bề dày lịch sử, có
cộng đồng dân cư gần như thuần nhất nên tại đây một số tập quán địa phương có từ lâu đời được
các bộ phận cư dân trong cộng động chấp nhận nên cũng được coi là một nguồn chính của hệ
thống pháp luật.

NGUYÊN TẮC 3 QUYỀN PHÂN LẬP TRONG HP MỸ

1. Tam quyền phân lập trong Hiến pháp Hoa Kỳ

1.1. Quyền lập pháp

Điều 1 Hiến pháp Hoa Kỳ quy định: “Toàn bộ quyền lực lập pháp được thừa nhận tại đây
sẽ được trao cho Quốc hội Hoa Kỳ. Quốc hội gồm có Thượng viện và Hạ viện”. Quốc hội Hoa
Kỳ là cơ quan duy nhất có quyền làm luật ở cấp liên bang và không được uỷ quyền lập pháp của
mình cho bất kì cơ quan nhà nước nào. Có nhiều trường hợp Tòa án tối cao đã tuyên Quốc hội vi
hiến khi trao cho các toà án quyền lập pháp. Cụ thể là Quốc hội Mỹ ban hành Luật hệ thống Tòa
án năm 1789, Luật thành lập tòa án tư pháp 1793 đã cho phép các tòa án ở Hoa Kỳ được ban
hành các quy tắc tố tụng để áp dụng tại tòa án mình với điều kiện các quy tắc đó không được trái
với pháp luật của Hoa Kỳ. Nói cách khác, bằng các điều khoản nói trên, Quốc hội Hoa Kỳ đã uỷ
quyền, trao quyền lập pháp cho tòa án và Tổng thống ban hành luật về các quy tắc tố tụng áp
dụng tại tòa, và như vậy là vi hiến nghiêm trọng.

1.2. Quyền hành pháp

Điều 2 Hiến pháp trao quyền hành pháp cho Tổng thống. Để đảm bảo sự độc lập của cơ
quan hành pháp, Hiến pháp quy định Tổng thống do dân bầu trực tiếp với nhiệm kỳ bốn năm,
mỗi Tổng thống làm việc tối đa hai nhiệm kỳ. Điều khoản này còn trao cho Tổng thống trách
nhiệm đảm bảo pháp luật được thực thi một cách có hiệu quả trên thực tế. Tổng thống có quyền
bổ nhiệm, miễn nhiệm các công chức thuộc khối hành pháp. Bản thân Quốc hội Hoa Kỳ không
thể tự ý miễn nhiệm các công chức Chính phủ và cũng không được phép cản trở Tổng thống

7
trong quá trình thực hiện quyền hạn này. Thêm vào đó, Quốc hội không thể đơn phương cản trở
các công chức Chính phủ trong quá trình họ thực thi trách nhiệm của mình, thậm chí ngay cả khi
có sự đồng thuận của cả Thượng nghị viện và Hạ nghị viện, Quốc hội cũng không thể bác bỏ
quyết định hành chính nào đó.

1.3. Quyền tư pháp

Điều 3 Hiến pháp Hoa Kỳ cho phép Quốc hội thành lập ra Tòa án tối cao của Hoa Kỳ và
các toà án liên bang cấp dưới đồng thời trao quyền tư pháp – quyền xét xử và bảo vệ pháp luật
cho hệ thống tòa án này. Tòa án là bộ máy xét xử chuyên nghiệp, và mọi kết quả giải quyết tranh
chấp của Tòa án có giá trị bắt buộc thi hành với mọi cá nhân, cơ quan, tổ chức. Thẩm phán liên
bang do Tổng thống bổ nhiệm (phải được Thượng nghị viện phê chuẩn). Thẩm phán liên bang có
nhiệm kỳ cả đời với mức lương ổn định trong suốt nhiệm kỳ. Quy định này nhằm đảm bảo sự độc
lập, vô tư và kiên định của các thẩm phán liên bang trong quá trình xét xử trước bất kì cám dỗ
nào, dù là quyền lực hay vật chất.

2. Sự kiềm chế, đối trọng giữa ba nhánh quyền

2.1. Kiềm chế, đối trọng từ phía cơ quan lập pháp

Theo Hiến pháp Hoa Kỳ, Quốc hội không có quyền can thiệp vào văn bản hành chính được
Chính phủ ban hành nhưng lại có quyền ban hành các đạo luật để điều hướng việc ban hành các
văn bản của Chính phủ. Quốc hội có quyền can thiệp vào vấn đề nhân sự của cơ quan hành pháp,
thể hiện ở quyền chỉ định và miễn nhiệm Tổng thống, quyền phê chuẩn danh sách các quan chức
Chính phủ do Tổng thống bổ nhiệm. Khi không có ứng viên nào của chức Tổng thống đạt được
đa số phiếu trong cuộc tuyển cử, Hạ nghị viện có quyền chọn ra Tổng thống từ ba ứng cử viên
sáng giá nhất.

Ngoài ra, khi bổ nhiệm các thành viên của nội các Chính phủ cấp cao (như các bộ trưởng),
Tổng thống cũng cần có sự phê chuẩn của Thượng nghị viện. Quốc hội cũng có thể miễn nhiệm
các công chức chính phủ, các thẩm phán liên bang, thậm chí là Tổng thống bằng việc mở phiên
tòa xét xử của Thượng viện khi có đơn luận tội Tổng thống của Hạ viện và nếu xét thấy Tổng
thời thực sự có hành vi vi phạm pháp luật. Bên cạnh đó, Quốc hội có quyền can thiệp vào bộ máy
của cơ quan tư pháp như thành lập ra các tòa án cấp dưới của Tòa án tối cao và xác định thẩm
quyền cũng như quy mô của tòa án này. Các thẩm phán liên bang và các thẩm phán Tòa án Tối
cao dù được Tổng thống bổ nhiệm nhưng cũng phải được Thượng viện phê chuẩn.

2.2. Kiềm chế, đối trọng từ phía cơ quan hành pháp

8
 Mặc dù là người đứng đầu cơ quan hành pháp nhưng Tổng thống Hoa Kỳ được phép can
thiệp vào hoạt động lập pháp của Quốc hội thông qua việc sử dụng quyền phủ quyết đối với dự
luật đã được Quốc hội thông qua. Tuy nhiên, quyền phủ quyết này có thể bị vô hiệu hoá nếu sau
khi Tổng thống phủ quyết, dự luật được bỏ phiếu tại cả hai viện mà mỗi viện có tối thiểu 2/3 số
phiếu tán thành.

Không chỉ có quyền can thiệp vào hoạt động lập pháp, Tổng thống Hoa Kỳ còn có quyền
can thiệp vào hoạt động tư pháp, kể cả việc can thiệp vào vấn đề nhân sự của cơ quan này. Cụ
thể, Tổng thống có thể bổ nhiệm thẩm phán liên bang và thẩm phán Tòa án Tối cao (nhưng phải
được Thượng nghị viện phê chuẩn); Tổng thống cũng có quyền phát lệnh tha bổng hoặc ân xá mà
không cần có sự phê chuẩn của bất cứ viện nào của Quốc hội hoặc thậm chí ý kiến của phạm
nhân.  

2.3. Kiềm chế, đối trọng từ phía cơ quan tư pháp

Toà án Hoa Kỳ có quyền kiểm soát cả cơ quan lập pháp và cơ quan hành pháp thông qua
việc giám sát bằng thủ tục “xem xét tư pháp” đối với các văn bản pháp luật do các cơ quan này
ban hành. Quyền xem xét tư pháp hiểu đơn giản là quyền lực của Tòa án có thể bãi bỏ các văn
bản pháp luật được ban hành bởi các cơ quan thuộc nhánh lập pháp và hành pháp mà Tòa án cho
rằng là vi hiến (bao gồm cả các đạo luật được Quốc hội Mỹ ban hành). Đáng chú ý, quyền xem
xét tư pháp không được quy định cụ thể trong Hiến pháp Mỹ. Khoản 2, Điều 3 Hiến pháp Hoa
Kỳ quy định: “Quyền lực tư pháp có hiệu lực đối với tất cả các vụ việc trên phương diện luật
pháp và công lý…”. Và đây cũng chính là cơ sở cho quyền của Tòa án Tối cao có thể tuyên bố
các bộ luật của Quốc hội hay những sắc lệnh, quyết định của Tổng thống là không phù hợp với
Hiến pháp. Dựa trên quy định này của Hiến pháp, Chánh án Tòa án Tối cao Mỹ John Marshall đã
đưa ra một quyết định lịch sử về ghi nhận quyền xem xét tư pháp của Tòa án vào năm 1803.

HỆ THỐNG TÒA ÁN ANH

Trải qua nhiều thế kỷ, cấu trúc hệ thống tòa án của Vương quốc Anh đã có nhiều sự thay
đổi đáng kể. Trước thế kỉ X, Anh quốc bị chia cắt thành nhiều vương quốc nhỏ; cái được gọi là
tòa án thực chất là cuộc họp công cộng (public assemblies) với các thẩm phán không chuyên
nghiệp. Vào thế kỉ X, dưới thời Hoàng đế Alfred, mỗi quận và bách hộ khu đều có Tòa án với
thẩm quyền xét xử bị giới hạn trong phạm vi lãnh thổ của địa phương. Dưới thời William đệ nhất,
hệ thống tòa án phong kiến của các thủ lĩnh địa phương (baronial courts) cũng được thành lập,
dần dần thay thế các tòa án bách hộ khu và tòa án quận đồng thời các tòa án giáo hội cũng hình
thành. Tuy nhiên, sau này hầu như chỉ còn hai loại tòa án ở Anh là Tòa án Hoàng gia và Tòa án
giáo hội do Tòa án phong kiến đã dần bị thay thế bởi Tòa án Hoàng gia. Sau đó cho tới trước
9
cuộc cải cách cuối thế kỉ XIX, ở Anh tồn tại 2 hệ thống tòa án: Tòa án Hoàng gia và Tòa Đại
pháp. Tuy nhiên, vào cuối thế kỉ XIX, hai hệ thống tòa án này đã tỏ ra lỗi thời và bộc lộ nhiều bất
cập do giữa hai hệ thống tòa án này không có sự thống nhất về thủ tục tố tụng. Những điểm yếu
kém trong hoạt động của các tòa án thời bấy giờ đã dẫn đến nhu cầu cải tổ của hệ thống pháp luật
Anh vào cuối thế kỉ XIX. Thông qua việc ban hành hai đạo luật quan trọng là Luật Tòa án tối cao
năm 1873 (Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873) và Luật thẩm quyền xét xử phúc thẩm năm
1876 (Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876) hệ thống tòa án của Vương quốc Anh trong giai đoạn này
đã được cải tổ một cách đáng kể. Theo đó, nhiều tòa án tồn tại độc lập trước cải tổ đã được quy tụ
và đưa vào làm nên hai bộ phận cấu thành của một Tòa án tối cao duy nhất - đó là Tòa án cấp cao
(High Court of Justice) và Tòa phúc thẩm. Các Tòa án Hoàng gia, Tòa đại pháp và nhiều tòa giải
quyết các vụ việc gia đình và hàng hải trước cải tổ cũng đã trở thành các tòa chuyên trách trong
Tòa án cấp cao sau cải tổ. Trên Tòa cấp cao là Tòa phúc thẩm cũng được hợp nhất từ nhiều tòa
phúc thẩm hoạt động độc lập trước cải tổ. Thêm vào đó, đạo luật năm 1876 cũng đã ghi nhận sự
thành lập Ủy ban tư pháp đặc biệt của Thượng Nghị Viện, là cấp xét xử phúc thẩm cuối cùng ở
Anh.
2. Cơ cấu tổ chức của hệ thống Tòa án Anh
2.1. Tòa án cấp cơ sở
a. Tòa án địa hạt (County Court)
b. Tòa pháp quan (Magistrates’ Court)
c. Tòa gia đình (Family Court)
Tòa gia đình được ghi nhận vào năm 2014 sau khi một số phần liên quan trong Luật Tội
phạm và Tòa án 2013 có hiệu lực. Tòa gia đình có quyền tài phán quốc gia và cũng là tòa án đầu
tiên đưa tất cả các cấp thẩm phán gia đình ngồi trong cùng một tòa án. Vì vậy, các vụ án gia đình
không còn được xét xử tại Tòa án địa hạt hay Tòa án Tố tụng gia đình (đã bị bãi bỏ). Một trong
những ưu điểm chính của Tòa án mới là giảm thiểu sự lãng phí thời gian và nguồn lực trong việc
chuyển vụ việc giữa các Tòa án khác nhau, vốn là đặc điểm của cơ cấu trước đây.
2.2. Tòa án cấp trên (Senior Court)
a. Tòa án cấp cao (High Court)
Trong tòa cấp cao cũng bao gồm 3 Tòa chuyên trách gồm: Tòa Nữ hoàng (Queen’s Bench
Division), Tòa đại pháp quan (Chancery Division), Tòa gia đình chuyên trách (Family Division).
b. Tòa hình sự trung ương (Crown Court)
c. Tòa phúc thẩm (Court of Appeal)

10
 2.3. Tòa án tối cao của Vương quốc Anh
Trước năm 2005, cấp xét xử cao nhất của Anh bao gồm 2 cơ quan tồn tại song song: Hội
đồng cơ mật và Ủy ban phúc thẩm của Thượng Nghị Viện. Sau Luật cải tổ Hiến pháp 2005, cấp
xét xử cao nhất của Anh chuyển thành hai cơ quan: Tòa án Tối cao Vương quốc Anh và Ủy ban
tư pháp của Hội đồng cơ mật. Tại đó quyền tài phán đối với vấn đề phân quyền cũng được
chuyển từ Ủy ban tư pháp sang Tòa án Tối cao Vương quốc Anh. Hiện tại Ủy ban Tư pháp của
Hội đồng Cơ mật là tòa án phúc thẩm cao nhất đối với nhiều quốc gia thuộc Khối thịnh vượng
chung, cũng như các vùng lãnh thổ hải ngoại thuộc Anh và các khu vực căn cứ quân sự có chủ
quyền. Ngoài ra, UBTP đôi lúc cũng nhận kháng cáo từ một số tòa án cổ đại và giáo hội.
II. BÌNH LUẬN VỀ HỆ THỐNG TÒA ÁN ANH
1. Tính phức tạp của hệ thống Tòa án ở Anh
Thứ nhất, sự phức tạp này là do Vương quốc Anh không có hệ thống tòa án thống nhất và
duy nhất kể cả trước đây cho đến hiện nay. Trước đây, nước Anh và xứ Wales có chung một hệ
thống tòa án trong khi hai lãnh thổ còn lại đều có hệ thống tòa án riêng. Ngay cả thời điểm hiện
tại, sự không thống nhất này vẫn bộc lộ rõ nét: England và xứ Wales có chung một hệ thống tòa
án; trong khi đó Scotland và Bắc Ireland, mỗi lãnh thổ có một hệ thống tòa án riêng.
Thứ hai, sự phức tạp của hệ thống tòa án Anh không nằm ở việc có nhiều tòa mà bởi vì có
các quy định đặc biệt và các trường hợp ngoại lệ liên quan đến việc chọn tòa sơ thẩm, phúc thẩm
đối với cụ thể từng vụ việc. Đây là đặc trưng của hệ thống tòa án Anh so với hệ thống tòa án ở
các quốc gia khác. Việc xét xử sơ thẩm, phúc thẩm không phải lúc nào cũng diễn ra theo một
trình tự thống nhất từ tòa án cấp dưới lên tòa cấp trên liền kề. Cụ thể là có một số vụ việc sau khi
xét xử sơ thẩm nếu có kháng cáo sẽ được chuyển lên phúc thẩm ở Tòa án cấp cao hay Tòa án
phúc thẩm hoặc Tòa án tối cao. Người dân bình thường, thông thường có thể liên hệ với một
trong khoảng 400 tòa án địa phương, nơi có thể xét xử sơ thẩm phần lớn các vụ dân sự. Tên gọi
của các tòa này dễ khiến người ta hiểu lầm rằng thẩm quyền theo lãnh thổ của các tòa địa phương
không trùng hợp với cách phân chia hành chính trong nước. Các tội hình sự thông thường (đến
khoảng 98% vụ việc) được xử sơ thẩm bởi gần 1000 tòa.
Thứ ba, hệ thống tòa án Anh được chia ra thành hai cấp tòa án hình sự và ba cấp tòa án
dân sự có thẩm quyền xét xử sơ thẩm. Chính sự phân chia này đã gây ra sự chồng chéo về thẩm
quyền xét xử giữa các tòa sơ thẩm.
Thứ tư, hệ thống tòa án Anh được chia ra thành hai nhánh lớn là tòa án dân sự và tòa án
hình sự. Tuy nhiên, không phải lúc nào thẩm quyền xét xử các vụ việc dân sự và hình sự cũng
11
được tách bạch rõ ràng nên có thể gây ra sự xung đột về thẩm quyền và khó khăn trong quá trình
xét xử. Bên cạnh đó, do một số tòa án cấp trên đồng thời có thẩm quyền xét xử cả vụ việc dân sự
lẫn các vụ án hình sự, việc phân công tòa án xét xử đối với từng vụ việc trở nên khó khăn.
2. Những điểm đặc thù của hệ thống Tòa án ở Anh so với các quốc gia khác
Thứ nhất, trong lịch sử, Anh Quốc không có hệ thống tòa án đơn nhất được tổ chức chặt
chẽ và các tòa án cũng không được phát triển một cách đồng bộ, thay vào đó là phát triển cục bộ.
Có những bộ phận của cái tạm gọi là “hệ thống tòa án” đó đã được cải tổ và sắp xếp lại cho phù
hợp với nhu cầu xét xử của từng thời kỳ.
Thứ hai, phần lớn các vụ kiện dân sự không được giải quyết ở các tòa dân sự mà được
giải quyết ở một trong những tòa án lựa chọn xuất hiện ở thế kỉ XX, đó là các cơ quan tài phán
(tribunals) và tổ chức trọng tài (arbitration). Thực tế này đã làm nảy sinh câu hỏi liệu sự hiện diện
của các cơ quan tài phán này có phải là minh chứng cho những khiếm khuyết của tòa án dân sự
và thủ tục tố tụng dân sự của Anh.
Thứ ba, hệ thống Tòa nước Anh cũng không tồn tại một nhánh tòa hành chính riêng biệt,
mà các vụ việc liên quan đến khiếu nại, khiếu kiện hành chính được một thẩm phán của Tòa Nữ
hoàng chuyên trách hoặc Văn phòng chính Tòa nữ hoàng giải quyết.
Bên cạnh đó, trong cấp tòa pháp quan - cấp tòa thấp nhất xét xử sơ thẩm các vụ việc hình
sự (ở ngoại vi London và các tỉnh), các pháp quan đều là những thường dân, không chuyên, và
được mệnh danh là “những người vĩ đại làm việc không công”. Bởi trong quá khứ, đã từng có
thời kì họ không được trả tiền lương cho công sức bỏ ra của mình.

THE UK AND THE US LEGAL EDUCATION

I. Similarities in the UK and the US legal education
1. The goal of the UK and the US legal education
The goal of the academic stage is to provide students with three of the essential
requirements of a practitioner:"a basic knowledge of the law and where to find it; an
understanding of the relationship of law to the social and economic environment in which it
operates; and the ability to handle facts and to apply abstract concepts to those facts." These
objectives are striking similarity in the goals of legal education in the United States and the
United Kingdom.

12
2. Higher legal education in the UK and the US
After graduating bachelor degree, students in both countries can have opportunity to
participate in higher education as their wishes. Because the legal education in the UK and US all
provide Master of Legal studies course and Doctor of Legal studies.
II. Differences in the UK and the US legal education
1. Admission to Law School
a. United Kingdom
Legal education in England and Wales begin at the under graduate level. Students
normally start law school at 18 or 19 years of age. A student who wishes to pursue a legal
education must take the Advanced Level examination (A-level), which is a nationally
administered and graded examination.
Another marked contrast is that many law schools in UK require an interview prior to
admittance. Additionally, in the UK, prospective students who have earned a university degree
may be accepted upon the strength of that degree alone.
b. United States
Legal education in the United States begins at the graduate level. In addittion, prospective
students must take the standardized Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) or an equivalent exam.
The LSAT is used solely for entrance to law school and does not apply towards admission to any
other graduate programs.
Moreover, law schools consider students undergraduate grade point average (GPA), their
LSAT score, personal recommendations, and essays or personal statements instead of granting
personal interviews. The US law schools also weigh the applicants’ motivation, leadership
ability, work or extra-curricular experience, family, cultural and community background, etc in
making admissions decisions. In the US, unlike the UK, successful competition of another
graduate course study alone does not assure admittance to law school. A graduate degree or even
a doctorate in another field is merely one more factor that the school will consider when deciding
whether to admit an applicant.
Reason: The reason for the discernible difference in the entrance requirements is that the
legal system in the US requires maturity, the undergraduate degree can not only bring them a
more diverse and balanced education than their English counterparts but also help them acquire a
greater level of maturity.

13
2. Teaching Methods
a. United Kingdom
English law students encounter a vastly different educational experience than law students
in the US: In England and Wales, lectures and tutorials are the primary methods of teaching; the
case method is rarely used. Lecturers typically outline the subject matter in an orderly manner,
explain its intricacies, and attempt to relate it to real life situations.
The biggest difference between the legal teaching methods in the UK and the US is the
English tutorial, which is sometimes referred to as the "hub" of English legal education. Some
people think that The English tutorial may appear similar to the traditional US study group.
However, this is not true. Study groups in the US generally are organized by students and have no
faculty supervision. In the UK, the tutorials are taught by faculty supervisors who ensure that
students comprehend the lectures, and are up-to-date with their reading and studying.
b. United States
Legal education in the US is based primarily on the case method. This method presumes
that the common law is contained in basic principles set forth in the decisions and opinions of
appellate court cases. The case method requires students to read and analyze cases and then
discuss them in class using the Socratic method.
Reason: The development of legal education with an emphasis on the case method of
instruction in America has created the distinct features of American teaching methods.
3. Course of Study
a. United Kingdom
In the UK, regardless of which legal practice area the English law student wishes to
pursue, all students must complete an academic and a vocational phase of legal education, along
with an in-training apprenticeship. During the vocational phase, law students in England and
Wales must choose their practice area, to become solicitors or barristers.
b. United States
Normally, in the US a course of study is a three-year course. After three years of law
school, students typically graduate with a generalized understanding of the basic legal subjects
and logical and analytical thinking skills. Because most schools do not provide for specialization
or in-depth study in a particular subject or area of practice, 50 law school graduates in the United
States generally do not have an area of expertise when they begin practicing law.

14
 Reason: In America, the majority of students plan to practice law, however practice in
many areas which requires extensive legal knowledge. In the UK, not all students who study law
wish to become lawyers in England, these individuals can end up at the academic phase and
obtain a three-year law degree from an undergraduate university then switch to other professions.

THE UK AND THE US LEGAL PROFESSION

1. Lawyers
a, Similarities
Both in the US and UK, the profession of law is both prestigious careers because it requires a
lot of intelligence and ability. They can both practice independently or set up their companies.
Lawyers and the law in general play a very important role, even if not always a positive one, in
their society, and not the least in politics.

b, Differences

Firstly, about the law practice conditions:

In the United States to practice law, it is necessary to have a license to practice, that is to take a
law course. A prerequisite for taking this course is to have a bachelor's degree in law and pass an
exam organized by a bar association of a certain state and assessed as authorized by the supreme
court of that state. However in the UK, students can take a law practice course without having a
UK law degree, instead of with another university degree and attend a 1-year course to earn their
degree. Diplom in law. Unlike the US, becoming a lawyer in the UK is not necessarily reviewed
by a state bar association, but is done through some institutions that are allowed to open law
practice classes.

Secondly, about the classification and activities:

The English legal profession is divided into two branches: solicitors and barristers. The
reasons for this division are mainly historical, rather than the result of a conscious effort to divide
the profession into two distinct parts. The Bar Council (through the Bar Standards Board)
regulates barristers and the Law Society (through the Solicitors Regulatory Authority) regulates
solicitors. There are approximately 16,000 practicing barristers who are employed or self-
employed in England and Wales. They have their areas of expertise just as solicitors do. The Bar
Council defines barristers as: “Barristers are specialist legal advisers and courtroom advocates.
They are independent, objective and trained to advise clients on the strengths and weaknesses of
their case. They have specialist knowledge and experience in and out of court, which can make a
substantial difference to the outcome of a case”. The primary task of the barrister is to appear
before the courts. For becoming a lawyer in the UK, this is where most people start. A solicitor
traditionally works with the same tasks as a lawyer does in most countries, except for conducting
the trial itself. They assist their clients with legal advice, help them draft contracts and wills,
manages estates, negotiates on behalf of their clients,...Solicitors can represent clients personally
in the lower courts and with specialist training are also able to represent them in higher courts.
Solicitors are often the first point of contact for both individuals and businesses seeking legal
advice and assistance and tend to specialise in one or two distinct areas of law, such as personal
injury, criminal, dispute resolution, property, or corporate/commercial law. Solicitors are
members of the Law Society. The regulation of solicitors is done by an independent body called
the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA).
15
 Unlike the UK, there is no barrister and solicitor distinction. However, as the law develops in
complexity, a trend of specialization has developed, whereby many law firms have divided into
several groups, each focusing on a specific field. Examples: litigation group, tax specialist,
corporate law, antitrust law, environmental law, family law, civil rights, intellectual property, and
other law majors. A practicing lawyer is called an attorney or, more correctly, an attorney-at-law,
is a member of the legal profession who represents a client in court when pleading or defending a
case. In the US, an attorney applies to any lawyer. A solicitor would be the UK equivalent of the
US attorney-at-law. Counsel usually refers to a body of legal advisers but also pertains to a single
legal adviser and is a synonym for an advocate, barrister, counselor, and counselor-at-law.

2. Judge
a, Similarities
To be a judge in the UK and in the US, judges must first make sure that the following some
requirements, such as: Possessing good moral qualities, openness, fairness, impartiality,
politeness, composure, and prestige; general requirements to graduate from a university in law;
Competent, professional and have a good health

b, Differences
Firstly, about Classification and Conditions:
There are many different types of judges in England and Wales, from amateur judges to
experienced professional judges. There are 3 main jurisdictions: civil, criminal and family and in
these sections there are judges, magistrates and those that sit on tribunals in there and judges sit
in different courts depending on seniority. Meanwhile, due to the existence of a dual court system
consisting of the federal court system and the state court systems, judges in the US are also
divided into two categories: Federal judges and state judges.
If people want to be a judge in the US, they must work as a lawyer in 6 years. While in the UK,
the candidate must have a corresponding law degree and experience serving at least 5 years in the
industry before becoming a judge.

Secondly, about selection method:

In the US, the judge selection model in the form of election, advocacy is applied. This model is
often used based on the candidate's expertise and persuasive motor skills. Accordingly the
candidate must ensure the superior qualities of a potential judge. Specifically, in terms of
professional capacity, judges are often excellent lawyers with outstanding expertise, which is
reflected in their reputation and reputation in their careers. Besides, the judge must have a record
in the political arena.
While in England and Wales, judges are selected and appointed by the judiciary committee.
This committee operates independently without the influence of any other organization. The
committee organizes an open, transparent and fair examination to select the best candidate.
Candidates who ensure the contribution of prestige, credibility, experience and professional
ethics will be recommended by the Judiciary Committee to the imperial minister - the head of the
judiciary in England review appointment.

Last but not least, about the authority to appointed and dismissed:
Unlike many countries around the world, for many centuries, the UK did not have its
professional structure for judges. Except for amateur judges who are the exception, other judges
in the UK are often appointed from litigation attorneys and to a lesser extent from counsel.
16
However, this also encountered some shortcomings, so to resolve, the Judicial Research
Committee was established with the role of training judges, making changes in the mechanism of
appointing judges in the UK. Accordingly, the responsibility to appoint judges was placed in the
hands of the collective, not in the hands of the individual magistrate as before; The appointment
is made based on the qualifications and qualifications of each candidate.
The Federal Judge is appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. In a long tradition,
candidates for the position of judges often include attorneys with practical experience and
reputation. However, unlike the British legal system, there are some cases where the justices of
the US Supreme Court are appointed from professors of law working at prestigious American
universities. The judges have a lifetime of terms, so they don't have to worry about running for
the next term or worry about reappointment; they can only be dismissed through complicated
impeachment procedures conducted by the US Congress.

This difference stems from the development history of the two countries, especially in the legal
system. America was born as a union of 13 British colonies in North America. The British
brought their legal system to these colonies. Although originating from the British legal system,
since 1776, when the US declared its independence, the British and American laws became two
independent legal systems and developed in different directions, leading to the There are certain
differences in the legal system of the two countries, including the legal profession. This can be
explained by the British is a country with an almost homogeneous population, while the
American people are mainly immigrants, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, accompanied by the way
and distinctive socio-economic characteristics; So in the way of thinking and legal thinking of the
difference is inevitable. Besides, the US state is organized in the form of a federal republic, in
which states have their independent sovereignty along with a specific legal system.

THE UK AND THE US COURT SYSTEMS

1. Acknowledge precedent as a source of law
Due to the common Law family, both the United Kingdom and the United States
recognize legal precedent as a source of law.
In the United States, when judicial violations and disputes arise, courts are required to
interpret the law by previous judgments of the same or higher court. This is called the rule of pre-
decision or simply called precedent. If faced with adverse case law, the defendant will try to
distinguish the difference between his case and previous ones. After that, the higher court will try
to resolve this conflict to supplement the more complete case law.
In the United Kingdom, the creative role of precedent is very important, expressed in
accordance with the rules of precedent law that appeared from the early XIX century to be
understood as a rule established in a verdict. The construction of precedents from the judicial
point of view of courts competent to consider judgments of lower courts has contributed to the
addition of deficiencies of legal provisions in practice, so the application of judgments Rules

17
including customary practices are quite common.
2. The court system is all decentralized to trial
The British and American courts have decentralized trials. The federal court system in the
US consists of 3 levels: local court (first instance court), regional court is the first appellate court
and the US high court is the highest appellate court level. most in the federal system. There are
94 local courts, 13 district courts and 1 supreme court across the country. The UK courts consist
of a district level, including a district court, magistrate court; High-level courts include the
Queen's Court, the Family Court, the Grand Court, the Court of Appeals, the Central Criminal
Court and the highest tribunal is the Supreme Court of Great Britain.
3. Judge mode
Judges in the UK and judges in the US Federal Court have life terms.
II. THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE UK AND THE US COURT SYSTEMS
1. Organization of the court system
In the US system, the dual court system consists of the Federal Court system and the State
Court system. While in the UK, there is no double court system.

In UK In US

Grassroots courts: District Court District Courts of

- The district court is the lowest level of the - There are 94 courts. First Instance: Are
trial in the civil court system which can only - District courts have the main trial level
hear civil matters. the right to hear most of criminal as well
- Magistrate Court: is the lowest court in the litigation judgments or as civil matters
criminal court system that is only allowed to decisions of district Court of Appeal:
adjudicate the criminal field. courts that may be The courts of
Superior court proposed by the appeals of the states
1/ High Court litigants for have jurisdiction to
- Queen's Bench in charge reconsideration in appeal against
- Chancery Court in charge appellate courts. judgments judged by
- Family Court in charge - The Court of Appeal district courts.
2/ Central Criminal Court is organized by region
Superior courts of optical judicial courts are of 3 states or more.
competent to hear first instance of serious The United States has
criminal cases and several civil cases, to 13 federal appellate
appellate trials of cases that have been tried courts
by optical judicial courts when there are
appeals appeal.

18
 3/ Court of Appeal
- Specialized Civil Court
- Criminal Civil Court
Highest level of trial
- Appeal Committee of the Senate
- Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
- Supreme Court

Organization of The Supreme Court

Organization of the court system in
UK
- Is a final independent appellate
hearing independent of the Senate.
- The Supreme Court handles cases
of delimitation of powers between
the central government and local
governments from a secret council.
- Only appellate trials of cases that
are widely related to the public
interest and are the final trial level
for civil and criminal cases.
Organization of the court system in US
Federal court
- Is the highest level of trial
in the federal court system
and is a very powerful court
indeed.
- The Supreme Court has
the discretion to handle
complaints with few
exceptions: the court hears
only the cases it wants to
hear; The court has the right
to decide whether to accept
the appeal or appeal if it
feels it is an important case
State court
- The highest court of the
state is the supreme court
of states.
- This is the final appeal
level of the states.
- A decision of the state
supreme court if it relates
to federal benefits may
be appealed to the federal
supreme court.

2. Functionality of the court

Functions of the court system in UK
- Judge: judiciary are responsible for
interpreting the law and ensuring that trials
are conducted fairly and the government
cannot interfere with this.
- Deal with a wide range of civil disputes.
- Making laws
- Policy making
Functions of the court system in US
- Judge: resolve other disputes about federal
laws. Depending on the dispute or crime,
some cases end up in the federal courts and
some end up in state courts.
- The judicial branch decides the
constitutionality of federal laws.

3. Mode of operation of the court system

How the court system works in UK How the court system works in US
- Each court is forced to follow decisions of a - The judicial system of the Court is
19
higher court in the same system.
- Judgments of equal courts with each other are
only for reference to these courts. Not every court
decision is considered a precedent.
- The time factor does not invalidate the
precedent.
basically conducted through litigation.
- The decisions of the supreme courts of
state and federal levels are not binding on
them; State courts are not required to obey
the laws of courts in other states.

4. Principles of establishing court system

In the UK In the US
- British court system established by region - The US Court system is established by the
(Regional Court) State, including the Federal Court and the
- There is a Queen's Court to represent the State Courts.
Royal Family.

5. Judge appointment mode

Appointment of judges in UK
Judges are appointed from litigation lawyers
and counsel lawyers appointed by the
Judicial Committee to the Magistrate
General and are appointed for life.
Appointment of judges in US
- Judges are appointed by the President and the
Senate approves (the judge must be a lawyer).
- Judges appointed by state governors (Judges
are not necessarily lawyers).

6. Apply the laws

Application of laws in the UK Application of laws in the US
- Unwritten: applied to the common law - Text: Using laws to hear
court - In the absence of statutory and statutory
- Text: Applied for the court of justice regulations, federal and state courts often
compare with common law
7. Case laws
Case law in UK Case law in US
Case law is the main and primary source in the - Case law is less important
UK - Only applicable at upper court

8. Independence of the court

Independence of the court in UK
- Parliament is a legislative body and also the
highest body in the system of British Courts
- The Senate functions to adjudicate through
the Senate's Appellate Committee
- Parliament becomes the last judge of all
20
Independence of the court in US
- Due to the application of the Separation of
powers should be
=> The court is an independent body from
the executive and the legislature, the highest
judicial body in the court system. The
 criminal and civil cases in the UK Supreme Court is the final court, the decisions
- Does not recognize the theory of three rights of the Supreme Court can only be amended
isolated by the Constitution amendment procedure.

III. COMMENTARIES ON THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE UK

AND THE US COURT SYSTEMS
1. The UK
1.1. Advantages
Firstly, the UK court system has a unitary political structure therefore the court system is
divided into subordinate courts.
Secondly, judicial rights is concentrated, in line with the constitutional monarchy in
England.
1.2. Disadvantages: Focusing too much on the role of Lords Judicial Committee may lead
to abuse of power.
2. The US
2.1. Advantages
Firstly, the US court system is an achievement in building and organizing the legal
system.
Secondly, the federal court system is more rigorous and consistent due to its longer
maturity process and is more focused because of its critical role for the entire federation
Thirdly, the US court system has made a great contribution to the economy, democracy,
humanity and human rights in the United States.
The independent and effective operation of the court prevented and resolved the deep
conflicts that might have taken place in the extremely racially, culturally and ideologically
diverse society of the United States.
2.2. Disadvantages
State court systems are relatively diverse and uneven and are dependent on different legal
frameworks as well as different levels of development and organization in each state.
Due to the relations among courts and between federal and state laws are relatively
complex, leading to the complexity of which court case to apply to which particular case.

21
THE GERMANY AND THE FRENCH COURT SYSTEMS
1. Similarities

Initially, the court systems in France and Germany includes courts with different
authoritiess and powers. Accordingly, the court systems of the two countries is organized
“horizontally” by dividing the courts (judical court, administrative court, constitutional court)
corresponding to the legal relations (private, public, constitutional, ...) and “vertically” organized
according to the unit of territory.
Secondly, the courts in two countries do not have legislative powers but focus on the trial,
the judges always aim to ensure that the law is implemented in practice. In other words, “they do
not have right to make law and they just apply law to solve cases”.
Secondly, the highest judicial courts in both systems only consider the proceedings and
the application of the law, if there is an error, the court will cancel and transfer the case to the
appellate court that has previously tried to re-trial. They are primarily to “ensure uniform
application of law, clarify fundamental points of law and develop the law. In general, it reviews
rulings of the lower courts only with regard to errors of law”
2. Differences

  The French court systems The German court systems

General structure - Vertical: - Vertical:

The French court systems is
organized into 3 levels (First
instance court, Appeal court, and
Supreme Court).
The German court systems is
organized into 4 levels for the Judicial
court (First instance court, Second
instance Appeal court, Federal
Supreme Court), 3 levels for
Administrative Court, insurance
social, labor (First instance court,
Appeal court, and Supreme Court)
and only 2 levels for the Financial
Court.

- Horizontal:
The Court systems of France is
divided into: Constitutional Council,
Judicial Court, Administrative Court.
- Horizontal:
The German court systems is divided
into: Constitutional Court, Judicial
Court, Administrative Court,
Insurance Court, Labor Court,
Financial Court.

22
 Appellate regime The Appeal court can has appellate
jurisdiction over the protested or
appealed judments of the first
instance Court
The structure, - The Judicial court systems in
authorities of the France has their own authorities
Judicial Court which is settling disputes between
individuals such as divorce,
inheritance, property,...and criminal
cases
- To do their authorities, the
regional Judicial court is divided into
specialized courts (Civil court and
Criminal court). Each Court has their
own authoritiess (mentioned above)
- Those regional courts at the first
instance level are divided into
ordinary courts and special courts.
The Supreme Court in France has 6
courts: 3 civil courts, 1 commercial
and financial court, 1 criminal court,
1 court for social affairs
The structure, - The Criminal court is a brand of
authorities of the Judicial court in France
Criminal Court - Each categories of crime in France
will be heard in their specialized
court according to three types of
crime (committing crimes, common
crimes and murders)
- Particularly, the court meeting only
periodically 3 months/ period.
The structure, - The Administrative court in France
authorities of the consists of the Administrative Court
Administrative of general jurisdiction and the
Court Administrative Court of separate
23
Not only the Appeal court but also the
higher court can has appellate
jurisdiction over the protested or
appealed judments against in the first
instance Court. For example, the
second instance court can judge the
appealed judments of the first instance
court.
- The judicial courts in the German
settle private disputes but several
disputes relating to labour and
insurance settled in other brand
courts.
- The Judicual court are not divided
into specialized courts of judicial law.
A Judicial court can hear both Civil or
Criminal cases.
- The court at states at first
instance level is vertically divided into
the first instance judicial court and the
second instance judicial court.
The Federal Supreme Court in
Germany has only 01 court, organized
into rooms: 11 rooms dealing with
private law, 5 criminal rooms, 7
specialized rooms.
- Crimes in Germany is divided into
two broad categories and there are no
separate courts. According to this.
- Minor criminal offenses are heard in
first instance judicial court
- Other criminal offenses are heard in
the second-instance judicial court .
- The German Administrative Court
does not have specialized
administrative branch as France
- At the head of the Federal
 jurisdiction.
- The authoritiess of administrative
court in France are settle litigation of
special importance (decrees,
ministerial acts, the decisions of
collegial bodies invested with
national competence,…)
Administrative Court in German is the
President 
- The administrative court supports
the president and the senates in
fulfilling their tasks.

The structure, - The Constitutional Court in France - The Constitutional Court in

authorities and is called the Constitutional Council. Germany is divided into 6 trial panels,
human resources -The constitutional council consists each consisting of 3 judges,
of the of 9 members appointed by the responsible for handling major cases.
Constitutional President 1/3, Chairman of the
Court Senate appoints 1/3, Chairman of the
House of Representatives appoints
1/3. In addition to the above 9
members, the former French
Presidents (if they do not refuse) are
all members of the Constitutional
Council.
- Constitutional council only
consider the constitutionality of the - The Constitutional Court can
law when there is a petition of the conssider the constitutionality of law
President, Prime Minister, President even if the issue does not arise from a
of the Senate or lower house, 60 specific case.
senators or deputies. - Can declare a law
unconstitutional and remove that law.

II. Commentaries

1. Explain the similarities

Due to the inheritance of the Civil Law family and the profound influence of the theory of
power division, neither France nor Germany recognize the legislative role of the court. It also
affects the importance of written law and becomes the main source of law in the courts .

Both countries recognize that public law and private law cannot be put on the same scale,
in order that the court systems was establised with many courts with separate authorities and
power.

24
 2. Explain the differences

It is obvious that the historical, political, ethnic, religious, customs, ... conditions of each
country have its own characteristics. As a result, the law and the court systems in each country
exists differently. Moreover, each country has a different way of building and applying the social
management and law enforcement to the most convenient and strict. Applicable to the case of
France and Germany here, the difference can be explained in this following aspects:
The first aspect is historical, social context: Germany was long split and has reunited only
in a short time; after reuniting, this country uses the Constitution of West Germany as the
national Constitution in 1990. As a result, there exists differences in the legal systems of this
country, so it is necessary to have a systems of Courts that is widely organized throughout the
territory to promptly resolve existing conflicts and disputes due to this split. In France, through
the periods, it was agreed to use the same Constitution in 1958 so France is more stable than
Germany. This could partly explain that the German court systems was organized in more depth,
both horizontally and vertically. compared with the German court systems.
The second one is unit structure of territory: France is a single state while Germany is a
federal state. This different way of dividing administrative units is an important reason for the
differences in the organization of the court systemss of these two countries.
The third one is formal form: Germany is a parliamentary republic while France is a
bipolar republic

THE GERMANY AND THE US LEGAL EDUCATION

I. Similarities of legal education in Germany and the US

The first similarity is that both countries have models of law training for college
graduates. In Germany, they need to go through law training and have a bachelor's degree in law,
while in the US, they must have a university degree in any major.

Second, Germany and the US do not have a separate legal training model for each
profession such as training in judges, lawyers, etc. as in France and training in law in the UK but
joint training.

Third, training programs in these two countries as well as numerous other countries in the
world focus on students’ legal thinking skills and have specific training methods with a
combination of theory and practice. Nevertheless, the degree of association different

II. Differences of legal education in Germany and the US

1. Admission criteria
For Germany, those who want to study law will take the exam or be recruited to law
universities.
25
 As for the US, legal education is postgraduate education. Law students must be those who
have graduated from university and must have a bachelor's degree in any science subject before.
Law school in the US recruits very rigorously, some of which select only 1 student out of 5
enrollees. After that, studens will study for 3 years in the law school to get a J.D. (Juris doctor)
degree.
Thus, it can be seen that the admission criteria in the US are stricter and harder than in Germany.
2. Training process
For the US, legal education is also legal profession. This means that in addition to the
knowledge of law, students also learn about professional skills, consulting and litigation skills,...
But in Germany it is different, legal education is not associated with legal profession. The US
combines legal education and the legal profession in the same facility and in the same time.
As for Germany, the training process is divided into two different stages. Specifically, in
the early stages, law students will have to study for a period of at least three and a half years with
the subjects of the subject: history of legal doctrines, legal history, philosophy,... and some
compulsory subjects such as constitutional law, civil law, criminal law,... in universities. Later,
legal profession is conducted within two years.
3. Goals of legal education
In the US, legal education is intended to provide students with knowledge of law practice.
Students can work immediately after the end of the training program. Lecturers train students to
be lawyers who are more likely to win lawsuits in practice than just study the law. They train by
finding laws, applying them flexibly to practice.
In Germany, after completing and receiving a bachelor's degree in law, students only have
basic knowledge of academic research and cannot immediately work. If they wish to practice
law, they must continue to undergo a legal profesison process.
4. Education programs
The US’s law school program includes knowledge related to the law: the content of US
laws and how to apply it to practice. However, this is not the final purpose of law training in the
US. Because, the legal system is too much and complicated, the US is a federal country, so in
addition to the federal legal system, there are 50 legal systems of the state and district of
Columbia. With the legal system and many regulations as well as frequent changes, law schools
often aim to train people in thinking ability, reasoning level, ability to work independently. With
this goal, the freshman begins with reading, studying law and case law. On that basis, students
26
conduct writing essays related to legal awareness, lecturers will assign topics from easy to
difficult. In the second and third year, students will practice writing reports related to the work of
a lawyer (the documents of the lawyer sent to the customer, the documents of the lawyer sent to
the judge,...). Students must make efforts in researching, exploring and analyzing legal
documents as well as specific details and cases to be able to make the most convincing opinions
as well as the most persuasive way of reasoning. The US’s special training program puts students
in a position to actively learn and study not only legal documents but also practically apply those
documents if they want to complete the course. It removes the passivity, relying on the lecturers
from students.
In Germany, the entire period of legal education is divided into two phases:
- In the early stages, law students will have to study basic subjects in law science such as:
history of legal doctrines, legal history, philosophy and compulsory law subjects such as
constitutional law, civil law, criminal law,... In addition to compulsory subjects, there are also
optional subjects such as tax law, European community law, competition law,…
- In the second phase: German law provides a general process for the training of all legal
professions, that is, law students, after graduating from university are qualified to operate in all
legal professions. Prior to that, they still had to participate in an academic session in a district
court or high court for a period of six months; at the prosecutor's agency for three months; at the
local council for four months and four months of training with a lawyer.
From this fact, the American training program is more about practice during the training process
at the training school, while in Germany this skill is more focused when going to practice.
5. Learning materials
Since Germany and the U.S. are two countries of two different legal families, the learning
materials used in training are also different. In Germany, learning materials is mainly written law,
while in the US case law is a more commonly used document, before going to class students must
read documents including: casemethod, legal documents, related legal doctrines, some articles on
socio-economic (modified case method).
6. Training methods
US law training is very suitable for the complex and changing situation of this country's
society. Practical training methods with hypothetical exercises are assumed to equip students with
the skills needed to win. In addition to the situation of situations, Socratic, a current testing
method is a direct practical method (opening simulation trials, in which students will be a
27
painting lawyer The professor is a judge; Students must participate in legal advice and represent
the customer under the monitoring of lawyers and at the same time). Therefore, the US students
after graduating from the law school only needed through a short practical period of being able to
practice.
The method of legal education in Germany is currently appearing two different views:
reform views and conservative views. The reform group argues that academics should be reduced
and practical cases must be brought into teaching. The conservative group argues that Germany's
legal training regime has traditionally been very effective. Because legal training in the first
phase is associated with the training of basic, general legal knowledge, with the aim of providing
comprehensive knowledge to students. In-depth knowledge and practical skills of a legal
profession are the central tasks of the second phase. However, recent survey results show that
many law schools in Germany have focused on balancing the theoretical content and legal
practice in the structure of studies. This is evidenced by the fact that more and more reputable
lawyers and judges are invited by law school to lecture students. Besides, in the system of
questions of the first stage graduation exams, the proportion of questions about law practices is
increasing.
III. Causes of similarities and differences
In terms of similarities, like other countries in the world, these two countries are both very
developed countries in the legal profession and in the provisions of law also regulate the legal
professions corresponding to each other, so it can be said that the two countries belong to
different legal families but they also have similarities in the training of the legal profession in
general.
In terms of differences, mainly because the two countries now belong to two different
legal families, Common Law and Civill Law, their legal system has many very clear differences.
Moreover, the U.S. is a newly established country that is strongly influenced by the Common
Law family, so in the course of law training they attach great importance to the training of law in
general.

28
THE GERMANY AND THE UK LEGAL PROFESSION

II. THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN GERMANY AND THE
UK
First of all, both in Germany and the UK, after complete in university courses, students can
not become lawyers and judges immediately but have to undergo law training.
In general, in Germany and the UK, after complete in university courses, students (law
university or other university) can not instantaneously go to the jobs of lawyers, judges, notaries,
… but it takes time to train. In the UK, a young English lawyer cannot enter the judiciary directly
after his or her legal education; judges are instead appointed from experienced and respected
practicing lawyers. On like manner, in Germany, the path to becoming a lawyer in Germany can
be a long process that easily takes seven years or more. Praticularly, lawyers must pass two state
exams.
Secondly, the legal profession in Germany and the UK has diverse in professions.
The legal professions considered in the UK were those of solicitor, barrister, lately judge. In
much same way, concerning the legal professions in Germany, there are many legal occupations
such as lawyer, judge, …

III. THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN GERMANY AND THE
UK
3.1. Trained subjects
In Germany, students need obtain the degree in law in the university in order to lawyers,
judges.
Like the most continental European countries, in Germany, become a lawyer and judge,
student must first learn the academic legal, which takes at least four years to complete, is
provided by the faculties of law at the German universities. In other words, students cannot begin
legal training process to become lawyers, judges if they who are not law students accomplish four
years in faculties of law at the universities.
On the contrary, in the UK, it is possible for student to become a laywer, judge regardless of
non-law graduate.
In particular, those who do not have a bacherlor’s degree in law but already have other
university degree can learn an apprenticeship after taking a one-year course to pass the Common
Professional Examination (CPE). The Common Professional Exam (CPE), more commonly

29
known as the Gradute Diploma in Law, is a postgraduate law course for non law graduates who
wish to qualify as lawyers and practice in England and Wales. For instance, my first degree was
in engineering at Mancheter University. To become a lawyer, then I did one-year law course to
pass the Common Professional Examination, or CPE.
3.2. Methods
In Germany, legal practice under the general traning program of judicial funtions.
As a general rule, the law training regime in Germany is comprehensive, unified process
within statewide (including 16 states), which applied generally to judicial funtions including
lawyers, judges. This training process lasts about five and a half to six years in the law
universities and the faculties of law at the German universities. Accordingly, anyone who wants
to become a lawyer, judge, notary,…must all have to take an exam or be admitted to the above
law universities. Students who have been career-orented as lawyers, judges must still participate
in traning in the federal court or high court for a period of 6 months. Turning the focus to
Germany, legal practice under the seperate traning program of judicial funtions.
Basically, unlike Germany, in the UK there is the dictinction between traning judges and
lawyers, lawyers and notaries, barristers and solicitors. This will be analyzed below.
3.3. Typical professions (laywers, judges)
First of all, about lawyers
In Endland and Wales, lawyers are traditionally divided into two categories, namely barristers
and solicitors. Both are trained in law but serve differing functions in the practice of law.
About barristers, the primary task of a barrister is to appear before the courts. A client does
not directly contact a barrister, but rather retains a solicitor, who in turn retains, a barrister.
Traditionally it has been regarded as unethical for a barrister to consult with the client outside of
presence of the client's solicitor, which means that the client must ratain (and pay) at least two
lawyers. That duplication is usually defended by saying that a barrister should not be so engaged
in a controversy that he cannot see and present his client's case in an objective and convincing
manner.
About solicitors, solicitor traditionally works with the same tasks as a lawyer does in most
countries, except fo conducting the trial itself. He assists his clients with legal advice, helps them
draft contracts and wills, manages estates, negotiates on behalf of his clients, etc. Until recently
solicitors have had a monology on providing assistance with the transfer of real property
(coveyancing), but on the other hand thay did not have the authority to represent their clients

30
before the higher courts High Court, Crown Court and higher), where the clients were required to
make use of the services of a bewigged barrister wearing a robe.

In Germany, The path to becoming a lawyer in Germany can be a long process that easily
takes seven years or more with a two-step system as I mentioned above section 2.1 and 2.2. Apart
from some minor exceptions, a German attorney (Rechtsanwalt) has a proctected position since
only attorneys, i.e.members of a bar association, are allowed to professionally represent others
before a court of law. There is a bar association (Rechtsanwaltskammer) for the territorial area of
each OLG, and they collectively constitute the Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer for the entire
country. With the exception of trials before an AG, it is required in principle that each party be
represented by an attorney, who in civil cases must be licensed to appear before that particular
court (so-called Zulassung).
Secondly, about judges
In UK, there are many different types of judges in the UK from amateurs to professtional
judges. The UK does not have separate professional structure for judges, with the exception of
amateur judges, with the remainder being appointed from barristers and to a lesser solicitors.
In Germany, professional judges are selected by judiciary of the states. To become a
professional judge, you must have a law degree and a certificate that has passed a professional
internship and passed examination. Judges may only be appointed for life, for a specified term,
on probation or by commission.

IV. COMMENTEARIES ON THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

PROFESSION IN GERMANY AND THE UK
In Germany, the training of judges, lawyers, notaries,..in a general process that gives positive
points to students who have not yet oriented what they will do in the future. Through this process,
they can know which legal profession they are appropriate. Law profession in Germany is a
profession that takes a lot of time (at least 7 years) or effort.
In the UK, the separate law profession tranining process will be an advantage for law students
who have oriented career in the future. They will be trained in a more specialized manner in a
particular law profession such as solicitors, barrister, judges,.. Lawyers are traditionally divided
into two categories: barristers and solicitors, which makes them work more intensively in their
field instead of both counsulting and representing at court.

31
THE FRENCH AND THE US LEGAL PROFESSION
1. Similarities

Although they belong to two different legal families/systems, the practice of law in these two
countries still has certain similarities. Specifically:

1.1. Legal profession

France and the UK are both countries with complete and developed legal systems in the world.
Therefore, these countries have a diversified legal profession system, many professions to meet
the needs of the legal system such as lawyers, judges, notaries, …

All legal professions in both countries require a bachelor's degree in law and a period of
internship prior to practice.

1.2. Judges

The appointment of judges in the UK is quite similar to France when this job is put in the hands
of the collective, not in the hands of an individual as before.

2. Differences

2.1. Division

2.1.2. Lawyers

In the UK, the legal profession is split up into two main categories to reflect the two broadly
different roles within the legal system: barrister and solicitor.

While in France, previously, the legal profession was also divided into barrister and solicitor, but
since 1992, due to the opening of borders between European countries, France has officially
merged these two professions into one profession, called avocats.

2.1.2. Judges

Professional judges in France (magistrats) are career judges, and are divided into adjudicating
judges, who try law cases, and the law officers who work for the State Counsel’s Office
(ministère public or parquet). The adjudicating judges are often referred to as ‘judges of the
bench’ (magistrats du siège), while the ‘judges’ who work for the State Counsel’s Office are
known as ‘standing judges’ or ‘judges of the well of the court’ (magistrats du parquet).

2.2. Practice conditions

32
After graduation, despite having a bachelor's degree in law, students must continue to participate
in specialized training courses for specific occupations:

2.2.1. France

About lawyer: To practice law in France, you must first have a bachelor's degree in law (Maitrise
enDroit). Then, the jurist must pass the exam to enter the National Center for Professional
Training. At the end of the course here, the trainees must pass an exam to get a certificate of the
ability to practice law. After receiving this certificate, the lawyer must go through a 2-year
apprenticeship period. At the end, if the trainee receives a Certificat, they will become a formal
lawyer. They must also join the local bar association.

About judge: Bachelor must take the exam to study at the Magistrate Training School in
Bordeaux within 30 months. The Chief Justices and Justices of the Courts of Appeal, the Chief
Justices of the Courts of Appeal, the Chief Justices of the Supreme Courts with wide jurisdiction
are selected by the Supreme Judiciary Council and submitted to the President for appointment.

2.2.2. The UK

Solicitors in the UK, after obtaining a qualifying law degree, law students sit the Legal Practice
Course and then undertake a practice-based two year period of recognised training, or a training
contract, as a trainee solicitor. Those students with a non-qualifying law degree need to do an
additional period of study and take a course known as the Common Professional Examination
(CPE) or a Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL).

Barristers start their qualification journey by undertaking a qualifying law degree or a non-
qualifying law degree and CPE/GDL course. Aspiring barristers must then successfully pass the
Bar Course Aptitude Test and join an Inn of Court before commencing the Bar Professional
Training Course (BPTC). Having completed the training requirements set out above, a student
would be “called to the Bar”. At this time, they are considered a qualified barrister but will not be
permitted to practise until they have completed pupillage .

The English legal system requires judges, except for the honorary Justices of the peace at
magistrates courts, to first practise for several years as a barrister or solicitor with a good
reputation. Judges are selected and appointed by the Judiciary Committee .

2.3. Practice thinking

33
In France, because the Civil Law family attaches great importance to the source of law as written
legal documents (statutory law), therefore when solving a case, a French lawyer will first
determine what field the case belongs to, then find the documents regulating the relationship
arises in the case, then give a specific solution.

In the UK, because of the Common Law family, the US attaches great importance to using the
source of law as a case law. Therefore, the UK lawyers will find the case law corresponding to
the case, thereby drawing out the appropriate principles and legal basis to resolve the case.

2.4. Profession opportunity

In France, after graduating from a law degree, you can’t practice law immediately but need to
take part in training courses on judges, lawyers, notaries,...

In the UK, with the characteristic of law training aimed at providing skills to students, a jurist
with a law degree will have many options for his future career. That person can become a lawyer,
judge or lecturer in universities ...

3. Explain similarities and differences in law practice in France and UK

The legal system of these two countries belongs to two different legal families: France belongs to
the Civil Law family, the UK belongs to the Common Law family. Therefore, due to the
similaritíe as well as differences in the basic characteristics of the legal system such as law
sources, law training, ... so the similarities and differences in the practice of law in France and the
UK are easy to happen and understandable.

Legal profession in France and the UK

I. SIMILARITIES OF LEGAL PROFESSION IN FRANCE AND THE UK
Legal professions in both France and the UK have to acquire some certain preconditions
in order to achieve their jobs. It is because of the fact that these types of jobs require a wide range
of knowledge and professional skills. Thus becoming judges and lawyers demands them a
number of strict prerequisites.
About Judges, there are appointment mechanisms in both countries. Judges are appointed
to work in different courts based on their legal degrees, capacities and seniority. By following
this mechanism, it will create equity, equality and ensure effectiveness of their professional
activities.
About Lawyers, they all have to take part in lawyer associations. In both countries, it is
mandatory for them to act as lawyers.
34
II. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEGAL PROFESSION IN FRANCE AND THE UK
1. Judges
a. Prerequisites
In France, most judges are recruited by competitive examination. Precondition for a legal
career is a university law degree (maitrise en droit). It takes four years to complete. In order to
take the first competitive examination open to students, candidates must hold a degree confirming
that they have had at least four years of further education, up to master’s level. Successful
candidates are appointed as judges’ assistants (auditeurs de justice). After that, they can apply
and then be accepted into a judicial education program which is concentrated at one particular
school, known as Ecole nationale de la magistrature (formerly called the Centre national d’études
judiciaries) in Bordeaux is for both judges (magistrats de siège) and prosecutors (magistrats du
parquet) and takes 31 months. After completing the program, the graduates are usually appointed
to various judicial and prosecutorial positions. There is also a similar institution which exists for
administrative courts. Administrative court judges receive their judicial education not from the
judicial school in Bordeaux as mentioned above.
In the UK, judges are instead appointed from experienced and respected practicing
lawyers. It means that they must have a relevant legal qualification for five years, this being an
undergraduate LLB, a Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL), followed by the Legal Practice Course
(LPC) or Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC). The Judicial Studies Board (JSB) takes
responsibility for the training of judges, lay magistrate and members of Tribunals in England and
Wales. The JSB would normally organise the following for an appointee Recorder in the Crown
Court: an induction course; visits to penal establishments, for example prison and young offender
institutions; meetings with personnel from the Probation Service, which deals with criminals,
often young offenders, who are not sent to prison unless the reoffend, but who are under the
supervision of a probation officer.They also experience a period sitting on the Bench with a
Circuit Judge.
b. Classification
In France, professional judges in France are career judges, and are divided into
adjudicating judges, who try law cases, and the law officers who work for the State Counsel’s
Office. The adjudicating judges are often referred to as ‘judges of the bench’, while the ‘judges’
who work for the State Counsel’s Office are known as ‘standing judges’ or ‘judges of the well of
the court’. While adjudicating judges decide the disputes that come before them, the State

35
Council’s Office represents the interests of society in legal proceedings, and brings prosecutions
to ensure that the law is applied.
In the UK, because judges are ordinarily experienced and respected practicing lawyers, it
does not have a dividation as judges in France. Instead, they work in judicial office as Lords of
Appeal in Ordinary (known as Law Lords); Lord Justices of Appeal; High Court Judges; Circuit
Judges; District Judges (Civil); Deputy District Judges (Civil); District Judges (known as
Stipendiary Magistrates) and Deputy District Judges in respective courts.
c. Appointment
In France, judges are appointed by the President of the Republic. They are recruited
through competition or on the basis of special qualifications (Doctor of Law). A judicial service
commission makes proposals and provides advice. It contains the President of the Court of
Cassation, twelve judicial members and eight additional members, of whom two are nominated
by the President, two by the President of the National Assembly, two by the President of the
Senate, one by the bar association and one by the Council of State. Recommendations of this
commission concerning the appointment of lower court judges are binding. Appointed judges are
induced for life, work independently and permanently and cannot be changed without their
consent.
In the UK, as mentioned above, judges are appointed from lawyers. They are appointed
by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, who receives recommendations from a
selection commission. The Judicial Appointments Commission is an independent commission
that selects candidates for judicial office in courts and tribunals in England and Wales, and for
some tribunals whose jurisdiction extends to Scotland or Northern Ireland.They select candidates
for judicial office on merit through fair and open competition from the widest range of eligible
candidates. The number of judges is set by Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
2. Lawyers
a. Prerequisites
In France, it is necessary to pass the examination for entry into a Law School (EDA),
which universities administer as part of the Institute of Judicial Studies (IEJ), as a condition of
access to the profession. A candidate must have completed the first year of a four-year master of
laws degree or have an equivalent qualification. After passing the examination, they take a
professional education program, practical in nature, offered by a law school. The Implementing
Decree of December 21, 2004 changed the rules on the initial training of lawyers. Since then, it

36
has taken at least 18 months (compared with the previous one year followed by a two-year
internship), planned around courses and internships and divided into three terms. After this
training program, law students must pass the Certificate of Aptitude for the Legal Profession
(CAPA) examination and then take an oath before the Court of Appeal and register in the bar
association of their choice. Only then do they have the right to the title of avocat (fully qualified
lawyer).
In the UK, there is a significant difference. Practicing lawyers in England and Wales
traditionally divided into barristers and solicitors. Their different job functions demand
differences in training and precondition. Both barristers and solicitor start off doing the same
training: they either complete a qualifying law degree, or take another degree and follow it with
the one-year Common Professional Exam (CPE) (for solicitor) or Post-Graduate Diploma in Law
(GDL) (for barrister). These two (CPE & GDL) are conversion courses. With solicitors, they
must complete a vocational 1 to 2-year course called the Legal Practice Course (LPC), which is
designed to prepare for solicitor practice. Following this, completing a 2-year training contract,
which is practical legal work experience is compulsory. Training contract allows them to explore
different areas of law. After that, they must spend time in different “seats” (different law
departments) which will help them to find which area of the law they would like to specialize in.
With barristers, they have to apply to join one of the Inns of Court to study for the Bar Vocational
Course (BVC) that is mandatory. Next, they will face intense competition to obtain a funded
pupillage in chambers for twelve months in order to get practical training. All the applicants are
advised first to do a mini-pupillage of one or two weeks to get some insight into what being a
pupil is like. Pupillage is divided into two parts. Each part accounts for 6 months to complete.
What’s following is learning the rules of conduct and etiquette at the Bar, learning how to prepare
and present a case competently, learning to draft pleadings and opinions, having advocacy
training and passing a forensic accountancy. If successful at the end of the twelve months, they
are a qualified barrister and able to apply for a tenancy in chambers.
b. Classification
In France, practicing lawyers used to be divided into many different categories such as
avocats, conseils juridiques, avoués and agréés. After the reforms in the beginning of the 1970s
and the beginning of the 1990s, they have been amalgamated into one legal profession
(profession d’avocat), except the avoués at the Court of Appeal. Act No 90-1259 of 31 December
1990, which amended the 1971 Act, with its implementing orders, created a new profession of

37
lawyer (avocat) by amalgamating the existing professions of lawyer (avocat) and legal adviser
(conseil juridique). Just like in most countries, French lawyers represent their clients in French
courts, provide legal advice in non-litigious matters and draft agreements and other legal
documents. Pursuant to the French Code of Ethics for lawyers, it is still mandatory today to be
represented in court proceedings by a lawyer who is admitted at the local bar association in the
district of the court.
In the UK, as mentioned above, there are solicitors and barristers who practice as lawyers.
There are some predominant differences of role and types of work within the practices that they
have to carry out between solicitors and barristers. Barristers tend to practise as advocates
representing clients in court, while solicitors tend to perform the majority of their legal work in a
law firm or office setting. In detail, solicitors will provide legal advice, instruct barristers to act
for clients, represent clients in court (except when a barrister is needed), research on points of
law, negotiate contracts and prepare legal documents, attend meetings and legal negotiations and
prepare papers for court when clients ask for solving their legal problems. Differently from
solicitors, the activities of barrister are taking instruction from clients and their solicitors
managing legal briefs and preparing case documents for court, undertaking legal research and
drafting opinions, representing clients in court and presenting arguments, examining and cross-
examining witnesses.
c. Workplaces
In France, there is no national association of lawyers. There are 161 bar associations in
mainland and overseas France, each attached to a regional court and each headed by a chairman
and directed by a bar council; the role of the bar council is to deal with all issues concerning the
practice of the profession, to ensure that lawyers fulfil their responsibilities, and to protect their
rights. There is The National Council of Bar Associations which is a body recognised as being of
public utility, and has legal personality. Its responsibilities are representing the legal profession in
dealings with public authorities and seeking to ensure that the rules and usages of the profession
are harmonised. Lawyers at France’s two supreme courts, the Council of State and the Court of
Cassation, form a separate profession: they are public officials appointed to their posts by order
of the Minister for Justice, and when parties must be represented before those courts they have
the sole right to plead.
In the UK, most solicitors work in private practice in a law firm, though many work in
house as a solicitor in a legal department within a large company, the Crown Prosecution Service,

38
the Police, or in local or central government, and so on, whereas, barristers generally work in
what is known as ‘chambers’. Barristers are usually self-employed and work from an office with
a group of other barristers, this place is known as the barrister’s chambers. They can also be
employed to work in-house in legal departments by companies, organisations or government
departments. Chambers are traditionally located in the four Inns of Court in London - Gray’s Inn,
Lincoln’s Inn, Middle Temple, and Inner Temple. The Inns are principally non-academic
societies which provide collegiate and educational resources for barristers and trainees.

39