SRA chief wants more trainee positions
Solicitors Regulation Authority board chair Charles Plant (pictured) today calls on the Law Society to launch a campaign encouraging solicitors to employ more trainees, after the regulator abolished the minimum salary requirement. And he insists there is ‘little evidence’ that the 30-year-old mandatory minimum ever met its stated objectives of preventing exploitation and attracting high-calibre entrants.
Writing in today’s Gazette, Plant also defends the regulator against allegations that its decision will adversely affect diversity in the profession.
‘Professions with alternative pathways to qualification have a more diverse workforce and include larger numbers of those from lower socio-economic backgrounds,’ he says.
‘Indeed, looking at the career choices of those from all types of background, starting salaries appear to be a much less important factor than others, such as interest in the work of the profession, eventual earnings and length of time studying and accumulating debt.’
See By the Book.
Comments
Clueless and desperate
Charles Plant,
Do you really think you can force firms to take on more trainees and is this really an advisable approach?
You sound desperate and are reacting to the real concerns of stakeholders and individuals who state that those from less well off backgrounds cannot become solicitors because of low pay and large debts. Minimum wage is not a living wage for a trainee when you look at the reality of becoming a solicitor. All the evidence I have seen and statements from students and junior solicitors indicates that your decision will have a negative impact on diversity and only the wealthy can afford traning contracts on minimum wage. Those with actual experience of being trainees DO talk about exploitation and poor training contracts. The SRA continues to call it's own ideas 'evidence' and ignores reality.
Hahaha! Herod wants more
Hahaha! Herod wants more firstborn!
Vote of no confidence?
Is there any way we can oust this man from his post?
Please can he tell me how he fails to link the "minor" worry of minimum training salary and a "major" concern.... "accumulating debt"???
With respect - what planet are you from?
In response to what Chief Plant is saying:-
More lawyers from "lower socio- economic backgrounds"
Yes I would agree that in the future there will be more people from the lower socio-economic back grounds working in the legal sector but as patronised low calibre predominantly female peanut earning uniformed paralegals with little or no opportunity for pay advancement. This regime, however, may suit the stay at home mum who can say at her dinner party (if she can afford one) I am a paralegal at Solicitors Are Doods (SAD). High calibre female lawyers, who can't find one of the small number of lawyer positions, will join the even increasing reserve legal labor force due to being too intelligent and likely to cause the business operators grief. Real men wont be in the former profession anymore.
"Starting salaries appear to be a much less important factor than others" and "eventual earnings"
If an entrant to the new legal trade does not understand what a corporate structure hierachy is then he may be deluded into thinking that he is working towards a big pot of gold that many quite good lawyers will be able to claim their share in. In reality cheap female paralegal labor will mean there will be very few opportunities to earn signifcant money. Further, there can only be a small number of legal Directors of Gangmeister law firms if the shareholders are going to receive signifcant dividends. A master and servant relationship is being created and very few servants will make it to board.
Will investors in ABSs who have contacts in foreign countries seek to out source legal work to them and if so how will this impact on "eventual earnings" of paralegals and lawyers in this country?
"length of time studying and accumulation of debt"
Why would anyone do it if there was not going to be a realistic chance of earning a signifcant salary and lifestyle irrespective of the idealistic aspect of what motivates someone to aspire to become a lawyer.
There will be many bitterly disappointed young people who choose the legal career path only to realise that they have been sold an illusion with a signifcant financial debt attached.
Calm!
My, some emotion expressed here. Not sure why angry anonymous feels that cheap females will plug the gap?!
Anyway, my point is why should we law firms take on more trainees if there aren't enough jobs for them once they have qualified? It seems to me to be dishonest to employ young hopefuls on a low salary for 2 years and then wave goodbye as they depart to their uncertain futures once the training contract ends, trailing massive debts behind them.
Because it provides cheap
Because it provides cheap labour for ABS's-which is the intent.
Very true.
Very true.
Disgraceful
The following will be published in my local lawsoc magazine:
The SRA stated that the decision to scrap the minimum salary was taken in the hope that more training contracts will be offered to those wanting to qualify into the legal profession. Research, conducted by Richard Moorhead at Cardiff University, suggests that the number of contracts on offer will increase marginally. At what cost?
The minimum salary ensured that those from working class backgrounds received enough money to pay off the massive debts accrued striving for a better life. People who need to take out loans to fund their education will find it impossible to pay them back and enjoy anything more than a subsistence standard of living. The benefit will only be to those who already have a head start in life. When the minimum salary was set it was intended to encourage the best and the brightest, regardless of their background, to join a profession that would provide a fair reward for hard work and intelligence. Sadly it seems that the days of the legal profession being a meritocracy are numbered.
Those who are accruing debt to study Law must be wondering whether it is worth the effort. Unfortunately it seems the price is now not worth paying.