Scrap training contract, says thinktank

This is just self interest.

The College of Law realises that fewer people are going to subscribed to the LPC once it becomes obvious that it is a waste of money unless a training contract is secured.

The real issue is that there aren't enough jobs to go round.

It doesn't matter what you do to legal training; changing legal training does not change the number of jobs available.

There will still be the same number of unemployed graduates every year.

Yep, this "think tank" is about as much a charity as is the College of Law!

You just can't find a Suzi Leather to abolish charitable status when one is needed, can you?

Senior managers at the College of Law (a charity!!!!!) paid significantly more than the Prime Minister and now self-interested nonsense pretending to be serious research. WHY is the Gazette publishing this? Has it undertaken any checking of the validity or is it just space for what used to be (many years ago now) the Law Society's own college?

Welcome to the real world Mr Savage and the College of Law.

Now there is insufficient demand for courses due to a lack of job prospects you will have to close down some your of many branches of the College of Law just like firms of Solcitors and other businesses have had to close during the recession. Why expect to be treated differently. You are of course a commercial enterprise and not a charity !

By the way an ability to pay for a course does not evidence that you have the aptitude to be a Solicitor. A liitle bit of comonsense here, please !!!

There is no "bottleneck"

"Bottleneck" implies that once you get through everything is fine.

This is not the case. The number of training contracts approximately reflects the demand for new solicitors.

At some point LPC students need to look at the situation from an economic perspective: the fact that there are too many students means that there is insufficient demand for labour.

Grow up and stop complaining. Take the the hint and do something else (preferably a job of which there is demand)

The real solution is not to try and manufacture demand or manipulate the training system but rather for surplus students to do something else (or don't be stupid enough to self-fund the LPC) Then supply will have the chance to meet the demand.

It may seem harsh but this is reality.

The old joke still has a ring of truth about it:

q. what do you say to a law graduate?

a. big mac and fries please.

Has anyone thought about referring the college of law to watchdog?

That would an interesting programme.

Many other professions allow for qualification on completion of entry level exams why should the legal profession be different? Often further exams or competencies are required to be passed in order to advise or practice in more complex areas or at a higher level. These higher levels are then recognised by accreditation of the individual. This would allow the profession to be opened up and enable access to those newly qualified from University whilst recognising the expertise of those already within the profession.

As previously suggested to advise or practice in more complex areas or at a higher level would require further exams or competencies. I note your comments however it is possible to maintain standards and allow wider access to the profession.

The training contract allows firms to vet the best candidates and clients have some security that standards are maintained.

Allowing people to qualify as a solicitor with just pieces of paper is extremely dangerous. It will devalue the profession and significantly increase indemnity insurance for firms. It will become harder for firms to distinguish between the fakers and the talented.

Law firms are the best institutions to judge whether a law student is suitable for practice because their business depends on getting such class of student.

The ability of some LPC students is not good enough and, for them, the LPC is just a vanity project.

In any case I don't think it would make any difference if you allow students to qualify upon obtaining the LPC because they still won't get jobs. Law firms will still only take people they have vetted themselves via vacation placements and the number of jobs won't be affected.

I suppose people might feel better about the amount of money they have spent. Other than that I don't see any genuine benefit.

I too have interviewed trainees and the standards are disappointing.

Trainees tend to have no commercial awareness, no business sense and delusions about what the job entails.

These days trainees need to be skilled at selling and generating work if they are to prove to be an asset to a firm.

Trainees don't seem to understand that upon qualification they need to justify their position by selling.

That's a growing element of the job.

To Quality of trainees? There can't be many solicitors currently in practice who haven't got there via the LLB/GDL route followed by the LPC or before that the LSF. Much can be said about the detail eg the LPC has seen a significant increase in pass rates compared with the LSF. However, are you really saying that 'that the current system is not good at ensuring it is the best candidates who qualify' so the 100k or so solicitors in practice are less suitable than a similar number who didn't make it but would have done if the system had been different?

To: In response to the two - of course many solicitors are not worth their hourly rate, I'm always amazed that so many firms are so eager to boast about PEP - I'd be ashamed to highlight that we live in a society where fat cat lawyers can be paid 30x the earnings of a lifesaving nurse AND not have enough ethical sense even to keep quiet about it. BUT said lawyers operate in a free market with ample competition, so if clients are stupid enough to pay these bloated fees....!