Calls for major reform to law training
Pressure mounted for sweeping reform of the education and training of lawyers this week, as regulators announced a root-and-branch review of the current framework.
The review was unveiled as research seen by the Gazette suggested that there are currently three times more final-year law students who want to become solicitors than there are places available. Another study this week recommended the abolition of the training contract.
Last week, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Bar Standards Board and the Institute of Legal Executives announced a joint review of legal training and education. The review will examine whether the current framework will be fit for purpose when the Legal Services Act is fully implemented to allow alternative business structures next year. It will encompass the pathways to qualification, continuing professional development requirements and the regulation of legal education providers.
The Junior Lawyers Division (JLD) called on the three regulators to ensure that the review addresses the current oversupply of Legal Practice Course graduates and backlog of students still searching for training contracts. JLD executive committee member Kevin Poulter said the review should also assess whether the LPC course is fit for purpose and value for money.
David Edmonds, chair of the Legal Services Board, the overarching regulator which has overseen the review’s agenda, said no part of the ‘student journey’ should be off limits if the review is to be a ‘genuine watershed’. He said the exercise must lead to ‘concrete recommendations’ for change, with conclusions beginning to emerge next year.
In an indication of what may be contained in the proposals, Edmonds added that the time prospective lawyers have to spend in education should diminish, which could reduce student debt.
Diane Lawson, SRA interim head of education and training, said that ‘proportionate regulation’ would be high among the review’s priorities. ‘If SRA regulation is needlessly adding to the cost of entering the profession, then we will look for a remedy,’ she said.
In an early bid to influence the review, the College of Law’s Legal Services Policy Institute published a report recommending that training contracts be scrapped, with the LPC course becoming the new gateway to the profession. It said there should be a new type of law degree specifically tailored for those who intend to enter the practising profession, which would be more relevant to the vocational stages of legal training. Reserved legal activities such as probate and litigation should become subject to separate authorisation after qualification, it suggested.
Meanwhile, responses from 10,000 law students in a study by careers information website allaboutlaw.co.uk indicated that 50% will seek to qualify as solicitors. The careers service said that, based on the current training contract levels, there are likely to be three times more students seeking places this year than the number available.
Comments
Beware the numbers game
Law students may want to go into the legal profession but they are getting the message that it's got much tougher. LPC numbers have dropped dramatically this year and LPC insitutions will close their doors.
I expect the impact of the recession will effect law degrees also (though this will be three years too late for most). This is going to be particularly so post-Browne. The professions would be unwise to try and plan the number of LPC places: historically the student choice has responded well to the market. That's no comfort to those students struggling now, but it's also true. Overreact now and the profession will risks being short of good trainees in the future. (See this post and the link therein for the data: http://lawyerwatch.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/lpc-numbers-drop-dramatically/_
Certainly there are things that could be done: the Chair of the LSB's ideas are reparticularly interesting and a review of the LPC is timely. Since my time as Chair of the Trainee Solicitors' Group and Young Solicitors' Group, I have advocated a shortened LPC and thin sandwich approach to training. I do so on educational grounds: experiential learning and on-the-job training are key components in developing competent, but particularly excellent, practitioners. This would require significant imagination and change from legal educators and the professions. Is the review ready to seize both elements of that problem? We'll see.
Training reform for family practitioners
I don't feel particularly qualified to comment on the content of law degrees, but as a family solicitor in practice who is also a mediator, and in the light of the push for mediation to become more widely chosen for the resolution of family disputes than it is currently, I feel very stongly that mediation, collaboration and other ADR techniques should form part of the college training. 99% of the work I undertake can be (and is) resolved by some form of ADR - along a spectrum that includes mediation, co-mediation, phone mediation, mediation by caucusing, round tabling, collaboration, constructive negotiations and DIY. My case load is a typical private practice, private law, non-LSC funded mix of family law, though mainly divorce and the related financials. Only twice in the last five years since I trained in CP (collaborative practice) have any clients of mine, or their spouses or partners, needed to apply to the court except to submit a consent order.
Before I trained in CP, a large number of my cases utilised the court process to lever a solution - not great for the children. Why did things change for me and my clients? Quite simply because, a combinantion of my degree, LPC and training contract and adversarial court system suggested that adversary was the right approach to take. My CP and mediation training reskilled me to approach family disputes more effectively. I'd like to think that more clients going through difficult family problems would be better served by lawyers trained in ADR . Most would achieve quicker, better, less expensive child focused outcomes.
So I agree, changes need to be made if we are to be given the interest-based problem-solving toolkit which our clients expect us to have.
I totally agree
I totally agree with Richard's sentiments that 'on the job training' is essential. Glowing academics are meritable but sadly useless if the person concerned is unable to apply their knowledge in day to day situations. Isnt what is proposed the way that Legal Executives have always gained their knowledge and experience? Indeed to attain Fellowship I was required to have five years of 'on the job' experience. As a Legal Executive I am sorry to say I was made to feel second class and somewhat inferior to my 'solicitor' colleagues - so I went on, did my LPC and qualified as a solicitor. I have to say that the knowledge gained as a Legal Executive was invaluable in my LPC studies and I passed with flying colours!. Has the 'additional' study changed my approach to my job? The simple answer is no!
Training reform for family practitioners
I don't feel particularly qualified to comment on the content of law degrees, but as a family solicitor in practice who is also a mediator, and in the light of the push for mediation to become more widely chosen for the resolution of family disputes than it is currently, I feel very stongly that mediation, collaboration and other ADR techniques should form part of the college training. 99% of the work I undertake can be (and is) resolved by some form of ADR - within a spectrum that includes mediation, co-mediation, referall to cousellors, coaches or financial planners, phone mediation, mediation by caucusing, round tabling, collaboration, constructive negotiations, private "FDRs" and DIY. My case load is a typical private practice, private law, non-LSC funded mix of family law, though mainly divorce and the related financials. Only twice in the last five years since I trained in CP (collaborative practice) have any clients of mine, or their spouses or partners, needed to apply to the court except to submit a consent order.
Before I trained in CP, a large number of my cases utilised the court process to lever a solution - not great for the children. Why did things change for me and my clients? Quite simply because, a combinantion of my degree, LPC and training contract and adversarial court system suggested that adversary was the right approach to take. My CP and mediation training reskilled me to approach family disputes more effectively. I'd like to think that more clients going through difficult family problems would be better served by lawyers trained in ADR . Most would achieve quicker, better, less expensive child focused outcomes.
So I agree, changes need to be made if we are to be given the interest-based problem-solving toolkit which our clients expect us to have.
New paper on legal training - Gazette exclusive
Modesty does not permit me to take credit for my brilliant paper on the reform of legal training as detailed below:-
Twenty First Century Legal Training - "Keep it real!"
This paper seeks to demonstrate that with a few structural changes to the delivery of class room legal training dramatic cost savings can be gained by Chief Executives of Law Schools without the endless need to visit golf courses to find the answer to the cost savings dilemma every top flight legal CEO faces.
Current system
Chief Executive £300,000
Senior Managment
Principal lecturer £60,000
Senior lecturer £40,000
Lecturers £30,000
Proposed system
Chief Executive £400,000 (reward for implementing new system)
Senior Management
Supervisor lecturer £50,000
Teaching assistant £10,000
Example 1 - Current system
A law college may have 40 lecturers earning £30,000 and will take classes even if most the lesson involves handing out standard sheets produced by the college and perhaps answering a few predictable questions.
40 lecturers on £30,000 per year is a staffing cost of £1,200,000 per year.
Example 2 - Proposed system
A law college has 4 super supervisors lectures who effectively manage 36 Teaching assistants on £10,000. The teaching assistants position could be available to graduates or perhaps solicitors who have had children and want to keep their hand in the law, there are many possibilities which I do not propose to explore in view of this paper being brief. Standards do not have to drop. The role of the super supervisor lecturer will be to advise the assistants about more complex problems raised by students and to produce standard response notes to deal with likely questions from students. It may well be the case that good LPC graduates could be offered teaching assistant jobs while they look for opportunities in legal practice.
4 super supervisor lecturers on £50,000 per year means a staffing cost of £200,000 per year
36 teaching assistants on £10,000 per year means a staffing cost of £360,000
Total cost of existing system as in the example: £1,200,000
Total cost of proposed system as in the example: £560,000.
The proposed system therefore saves the college £640,000. The cost saving could be used to reduce the level of fees charged for the courses.
My work is in its early stages and I accept that the examples given are crude but I think you will understand the potential for costs savings if the model I have suggested is adopted in some form.
This paper does not attempt to tackle reform of top management and very senior or entrenched senior lecturers who may or may not be practising on job retirement.
I dedicate this paper to a very senior lecturer of thirty years standing who has produced a couple of book and several articles that could have been written by anyone. Many years of a £60,000 salary and an inflation proof pension. He has drunk the wine cellars of the south of france dry and I suppose sucked the marrow out of life and may he enjoy his retirement. SIR I salute you as an gentleman, an aesthete and an operator of the highest order. Your daughters quite nice too.
LPC & Training Contracts
As an employment adviser working for an advice centre since finishing my LPC in 2001 I can honestly say that the LPC was useless. Because I only did the CPE and LPC late I had little chance of getting a training contract and with a family etc. didn't try anyway.
But I found the LPC was next to useless. The fees are outrageous, even in 2000-1 they were about £7,500 at the College of Law in Guildford and I imagine they are over £10K now. The course itself was lightweight compared to the CPE. Having practised in employment law for nearly a decade, including 4 out of 4 wins at EAT I can honestly say I learnt next to nothing on the LPC. The employment module just skimmed the surface, the practical part prepared you for nothing and areas like Conveyancing were hardly relevant yet compulsory.
The LPC should be combined with the training contract. It is an unnecessary and expensive obstacle at the moment.
CoL
Can we please stop seeing uncritical sound bites from the CoL in the Gazette and have a bit more analysis of certain alleged behaviour on the part of this 'educational' charity?
http://www.rollonfriday.com/Blogs/ReadBlog/tabid/144/id/649/Default.aspx