LETR: Is there a big hole opening up under the solicitors’ profession?

Two papers published this week on legal education underline for me a number of unresolved tensions in professional regulation. The papers come from the Legal Services Board and the College of Law’s Legal Services Institute, the latter authored by Stephen Mayson and John Randall. The LSBs paper emphasises the need for the Legal Education and Training Review to focus on the regulatory case for intervening in education and training. In broad terms, any regulation of education requires a reasonably strong regulatory justification. This is one reason why there is a growing consensus (not shared I suspect by the Bar) that there should be less regulation of law degrees not more.

Mayson and Randall take a similar approach. They make the now familiar argument that an (improved) LPC should be the gateway to qualification as a solicitor but that there should be post qualification requirements (more courses and work-based learning) for those practising in reserved areas. I suspect there is quite a weight of opinion behind the idea that there needs to be a much stronger focus on ensuring competence in reserved areas of work and the need to concentrate on post-qualification activity in particular. What I am left wondering though is how the proposal to have a qualification for a solicitor which does not entitle you to do anything (save call yourself a solicitor, or a non-practising solicitor, a la Barristers) contributes to the regulatory framework? Put another way, what’s the point of a title which does not entitle you to do anything? It may open a rather large hole under the concept of solicitor.

Although cynics will point to the College of Law’s (and other LPC providers like Cardiff’s) interest in being able to offer the LPC on the basis that it enables them to ‘qualify’ as a solicitor, there are some more genuine benefits in greater flexibility. The two year training contract is a relic of the apprenticeship system which deserves a hard look. Equally, allowing individuals to take a title which may confuse them and any clients whom they service as ‘non-practising’ solicitors, is not an approach which simplifies or strengthens the system from the consumer pespective. A possible balancing of these concerns is to allow LPC graduates who secure employment with an appropriately regulated organisation as a solicitor to have the title of solicitor as long as they remain employed in that way. That organisation would be regulated in the normal way by the SRA and would be expected to provide proper training, development and supervision consistent with the individuals needs and the standards of a solicitor. The nature of that training and development might be both more flexible than a two year training contract but more tailored to the specific work of that organisation and more demanding in terms of its assurance of competence. That process and development would also be lifelong not two years, although there would come a point when a solicitor’s experience was sufficient for them to be able to break out on their own (as there is now). That seems to me to be a potentially fruitful compromise which might fill in the hole opened up under the title of Solicitor by the Legal Service Institute’s proposal.

Neither that proposal nor the College’s really deals with the concerns about mismatch between LPC numbers and training contract ‘places’. Serious as that problem is, in broad terms I do not believe that is a problem which is properly the concern of the LETR. Nevertheless, I believe that if we consider greater flexibility in the training contract we also ought to consider greater flexbiblity in the LPC. Vocational and work-based learning needs to be both strengthened and more tailored to the individual contexts within which lawyers are working. My own preference is for a stronger blending of LPC and training contract stages. A sandwich or part time model with vocational training and assessment targeted more at actual work needs would ensure better training and a stronger balance between those doing the LPC and the number of training contracts. It would also provide a better distribution of the costs and risks of that training. That ‘solution’ poses practical difficulties to firms used to having trainees available work full-time as soon as they enter practice and to training institutions who would have a smaller market of would-be trainees (probably) and would have to provide a much more adaptive set of training packages. I believe however it might provide better quality training and, as it happens, go some way to ameliorate the concern about mismatch between trainee and LPC places.

About these ads

About Richard Moorhead

Director of the Centre for Ethics and Law and Professor of Law and Professional Ethics at the Faculty of Laws, University College London with an interest in teaching and research on the legal ethics, the professions, legal aid, access to justice and the courts.
This entry was posted in legal Education. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to LETR: Is there a big hole opening up under the solicitors’ profession?

  1. Nick Hanning says:

    “Vocational and work-based learning needs to be both strengthened and more tailored to the individual contexts within which lawyers are working … A sandwich or part time model with vocational training and assessment targeted more at actual work needs would ensure better training …”

    So, something along of the lines of undertaking training in both substantive law and practice in specific fields of work while also gaining direct experience of that work through supervised employment and a Work Based Learning plan?

    Excellent idea and amazing that no one has thought of it before. Oh wait …

    [Please note I declare an interest as a member of CILEx]

    • Richard Moorhead says:

      Nick,

      Thanks! Nick Armstrong (former sol now @ Matrix Chambers) and myself in fact proposed this back in the mid 90s when he and I led what is now the Young Lawyers Division. Vested interests all a bit stronger then. Now, maybe there’s mre appetite for change…?

      • Nick Hanning says:

        Albeit slightly flippantly, what I was suggesting is that this model already exists through the CILEx training and qualification system (though the existing ‘qualifiying employment’ is being changed to a better and more structured WBL scheme).

        There is a perception in some quarters that this does not produce ‘proper’ lawyers and, without wishing to start that debate here, the key point for the Review is obviously that very point; what training is required to produce a ‘proper’ lawyer? (Though that assumes we know what we mean by a ‘proper’ lawyer …)

        The sea change required it seems to me is the ability to stop focussing on titles such as Solicitor, Barrister, CILEx etc. and focus instead on actual competence for the job in hand. The Regulator’s role must be to ensure that demonstrable competence is delivered irrespective of how that competence has been gained.

        (There is a related issue about how the general public can be assured of that competence if there is a multiplicity of types of lawyer or other legal services provider but that is outside the remit of this Review.)

  2. Tom Laidlaw says:

    Dear Richard
    your proposed model already works well in another professional services industry – accountancy. If it is good enough for KPMG and Deloitte, why would it not work in law?

  3. michelle says:

    for some the LPC is out of our budget, after doing a law degree and suddenly finding myself as a single parent I cannot afford the £9000 fees and to risk not getting a tc in time, so have taken the ilex route… as a mature student I find the constraints placed on us older students who arent supported in any way a hinderance, its going to be a case of unless you have a decent family income you wont be able to better yourself and become a solicitor…

  4. Jenny Tran says:

    “The nature of that training and development might be both more flexible than a two year training contract but more tailored to the specific work of that organisation and more demanding in terms of its assurance of competence.”

    Would focused vocational training necessarily lead to an assurance of competence? For example those trainees with law firms that direct their fee earners towards large-volume caseloads in a specific area (mostly personal injury) don’t necessarily provide an ‘assurance of quality’ if / when they move to a different firm. Those trainees spend the duration of their contract learning skills tailored within which the context they are working but should they move on those same skills may be limiting or even redundant on the open legal job market at a relatively early stage in their career.

    In my own opinion the way to bridge the gap between the number of training contract places and LPC graduates is to create a hybrid of the GDL and LPC that would either be incorporated into the LLB or studied one year post-graduate. Graduates need to have a wide range of skills and admittedly this requires a vocational element but the hybrid programme would at the very least provide some insight into the practical elements of different legal areas. At least with this method graduates can make a more realistic choice of their future legal career early on without having to spend a small fortune in doing so and thus spending the next 3 years of their lives pursuing recovering the irrecoverable sunk costs of their legal education.

  5. Pingback: Recommendations of the Legal Awareness Society at BPP for the Legal Education and Training Review | Legal Aware

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s