Barrister and now KC here. Comprehensive educated, did non-law degree (arts subject) then law conversion course and now at a commercial set.
As others have said the main difference is that barristers are advocates. There are some solicitor advocates but the reality is that it’s predominantly at a relatively low level. I haven’t appeared against a solicitor advocate for many years and would be surprised if a firm instructed a solicitor advocate to appear in a case involving cross-examination or heavy advocacy. Barristers make legal submissions, they cross-examine and they have to be confident on their feet in what can be an unpredictable environment. They are the public face of what’s often a much larger legal team and have to be ready to take responsibility if things go wrong.
They do also advise on the law but that is usually in the context of litigation that is either ongoing or in prospect. Such advice tends to be in their field of specialism. I say “tends to be” because I have noticed as I have got more senior, and certainly in silk, that my cases straddle several areas and I am expected (usually with a junior’s help) to be able to advise on all of those. My cases remain broadly commercial but within that they are multidisciplinary (eg they won’t “just” be about banking law and may involve company law, insurance etc).
I think the advantages of self-employment can be overstated. We have all the downsides of self-employment (income sporadic, have to sort out own pension) with little of the independence. I can of course write an advice at the weekend instead of going into the office, but I can’t choose when my cases are listed for court. And in the early years your clerks will expect you to accept work and have a large degree of control over your diary. I used to take a month off in the summer but that’s a distant memory. Commercial solicitors are paying me to be available to a degree even when on holiday and you can’t just vanish when key decisions need to be made.
A big difference when I started was that I had little to do with going out and getting clients, marketing, or the client relationship side. That’s something that solicitors and especially partners do (and the barrister’s marketing focus is limited to getting the solicitor to instruct you). However as I have got more senior, client management increasingly is part of my job - I see the client in conference and maintaining and building the solicitor/client relationship (which may go back years before there was litigation and I first met them) is down to me too.
Also as I get more senior the strategic part of the job becomes more, and not less, of a team effort. When you are one barrister working with one (possibly quite junior) solicitor you may have to provide a lot of guidance, but when you are working as part of a team with several experienced litigation partners, it’s a discussion. The stereotype of counsel coming in and telling everyone how it is couldn’t be further from the truth.
So what it really boils down to is that when all that culminates in a hearing, I am the one doing the advocacy. That, to me, is the centre of the job and the one thing that remains constant and an absolute distinction between what a solicitor and a barrister do. Aside from OP’s son deciding if he wants to do law at all, it’s vital to know whether he wants to be an advocate - so any public speaking, acting, debating, mooting (mock trials) will be hugely helpful to decide if it’s for him.
Do I enjoy it? Hard to say. It is endlessly challenging, high stakes, at times unbelievably stressful and extremely well remunerated (not in crime or family NB). In the run up to a big hearing I work 60 hours a week. When it goes right it is exhilarating. Being a KC still has a social cachet I had not anticipated. Getting pupillage is highly competitive (much more so than when I was applying as the number of pupillages has contracted over the years). It’s not a job to go into half-heartedly. I can’t imagine doing anything else.