Trainee minimum dumped in 'partial deregulation'
Regulators have voted to partially deregulate the trainee solicitor minimum wage 30 years after it was introduced.
The board of the Solicitors Regulation Authority made the decision to change the terms of the salary at its meeting today - with the change coming into effect in September 2014. The tailored solicitor minimum salary will be scrapped, but the SRA will implement a minimum salary at the main rate in the National Minimum Wage, currently set at £6.08 an hour.
The change has been deferred for two years to minimise the impact on people already in the training system and allow future candidates to make informed decisions on their situation. The decision comes after a five-month consultation with the profession and despite concerns that deregulation will prevent poorer people from getting training contracts.
Partial deregulation will face criticism from the Law Society, which questioned the measure in its response to the consultation.
In its own summary of feedback, the SRA conceded there were fears that removing the minimum salary would have a disproportionate effect on women and black and minority ethnic groups.
The board papers admitted there was a risk that employers would decide to cut salary levels as a result of deregulation. There were also calls to defer a decision until the findings of the Legal Education and Training Review were known.
A minority of stakeholders responding to the consultation, including the Sole Practitioners Group and some would-be trainees, were in favour of deregulation. They argued it would open the market for training contracts and create more opportunities for individuals, even if they were on lower-paid contracts.
Samantha Barrass, SRA executive director, said: 'We wish to thank everyone who responded to the consultation, and those who took part in the stakeholder meetings, focus groups, and the online survey for their views and information that were taken into account in reaching this decision.
'This decision was based on an objective consideration of very full and detailed evidence gathered through a variety of sources.'
There were 130 responses to the consultation, about 60 individuals in total attended nine focus group sessions across four cities, and over 1,300 individuals responded to the SRA’s online survey.
The minimum salary was introduced in 1982 by the Law Society to protect trainees from exploitation and to encourage high-calibre graduates into the profession.
Currently firms have to pay their trainees £16,650 a year, rising to £18,590 in London.
Comments
Deregulation
Deregulation's brilliant isn't it? Next we will be employing children to sweep chimneys for a slice of bread and gruel.
I would not be about to
I would not be about to qualify as a Solicitor without there being a minimum salary in place.
People like myself who self fund the LPC will not be in a position to become Solicitors. A move like this really does impact on access to the profession and is hugely disappointing.
Peanuts
So as someone who has self-financed my LPC, if I ever achieve my ambition of getting a TC, I will be paid less than someone with 0 GCSE's, working in a supermarket. Fantastic News.
Absolute disgrace. Lengthy
Absolute disgrace. Lengthy discussion on the responses. Looks like the decision was already made.
What a wonderful opportunity
What a wonderful opportunity for highly educated trainee solicitors to be exploited by firms too mean to pay a decent salary. Just think, two years on miminum wage, and then just when you qualify you find youself being shown the door whilst the next trainee waltzes through it!
Discussions around access to
Discussions around access to the profession have been taking place for decades now. You would think the regulators would want to move forward rather than backwards.
Dito to all the comments above. The SRA really have done something disgusting and cruel here.
i am never going to be
i am never going to be anything anyways...my future in law is scrapped.
The only saving grace
The only saving grace is that the decent firms already pay above the minimum required salary, and so to stay competitive there is no reason why they should drop their salaries in light of this change.
Don't get me wrong - high street trainees are doomed. But then they always were.
abolition
A personal view - but this will surely affect women and BME groups disproportionately, as well as (obviously) poorer aspiring lawyers everywhere. We were speculating in the Gazette office about how much debt an aspiring lawyer without independent means will now have to borrow (if they can?) from leaving school to completing a minimum wage traineeship. Any answers?
Yet another decision which makes a mockery of the rhetoric of millionaires - stand up Nick Clegg - about increasing mobility in the professions.
Paul Rogerson
Editor in chief
Gazette
I have recently finished my
I have recently finished my training contract in London and was paid significantly less than the SRA minimum salary.
I have mixed feelings about the scrapping of the salary. Yes, alot of firms (especially the small firms) will use this to their advantage and they are enough trainees ready to suffer a low salary to achieve the title of qualified solicitor. But when the minimum salary was in place did the SRA actually regulate it? I know of quite a few stories of trainees being paid well below the SRA minimum in London (myself included) or I dare say for free.... so I feel that I can't miss and fully grieve for that minimum salary as I never had it. I'm just glad my training is over.
As for getting a decent salary in the same firm on qualification? that's a whole other messy debate!
Exploitation
I write as a newly qualified solicitor, working in public law.
I self funded through the GDL and LPC and undertook my training contract at the minimum salary. Whilst I was fortunate to get a training contract and be able to qualify into the area of law I wanted to practice, I was told at the end of my two years that I would not be kept on as the firm could not afford to pay a NQ salary.
I am not alone in having this experience and wonder how many more trainees will experience the same when their salary has dropped even further and just when it looks likely to increase, they find themselves without a job as another would be trainee willingly lines up to be exploited.
Debt
The JLD have previously looked at the issue of debt when the issue of abolition was raised. Looking at a standard three year qualifying degree at £9000 a year plus maintainance of £5000 a year, an individual leaves university with over £42000. This is scary as it does not even take into account individuals that undertake other degrees and that take the GDL.
Including the LPC, the average price is approximately £9000 (again this does not take into account London weighting) and maintainance of £5000. At this stage, an individual has incurred over £56,000 in debt by getting to this stage. A lot of studies show that an ever increasing amount of people are funding their professional studies through graduate loans. These usually have no payment holidays after you have completed your studies. If you borrowed £14,000 - £15,000 you would be required to pay this back within a few months of completing your studies.
If you are receiving £6.08 you are effectively earning £11,000 a year. Take into account the average cost of rent, bills and professional studies loans. There is no money left to survive. These people will have little choice but to get a second, third or fourth job or try and fund their training through their parents money and/or a bank loan. It is likely that a further £10000 will be required to merely survive the training contract. This is without including all the formalities and events you are expected to attend.
The minimum salary provided security for these people to step onto the ladder in full knowledge that they will recent a reasonable wage for their work. The SRA's decision has effectively removed it. The whole process seems shambolic. The decision was not made objectively and the decision appears to have been predetermined. The EIA and responses from key stakeholder groups clearly identified the need to retain the minimum salary as it is certain that access to the profession will sufffer.
Call my cynical but it's yet
Call my cynical but it's yet another way of keeping the proletariat in our place. Very soon only those with rich parents will be able to afford to enter the profession. It'll be populated by swells such as Dimdave and his political catamite Clegg (to paraphrase Galloway).
At a time when legal fees are
At a time when legal fees are under assault from all sides, it's ludicrous to try to maintain some wholly artificial salary for trainees.
Since when was a Training Contract some form of Social Engineering?
Is their ANY other job/profession that feels the need to have an artificial level of training salary over and above what the law decrees? Name one other?
The market pays what something/somebody is worth - the sooner prospective law students realise this the sooner the LPC providers will stop making a scandalous fortune at the hands of those unfortunate folk who have been sold a pup...
Better to be put off from studying law, than reaching qualification on £pittance a year and then find there are no jobs available...
The base salary for a junior
The base salary for a junior doctor (first year) is 22k and they make about 30k with overtime.
It is not true the labour market is efficient. That is why there is a national minimum wage. I suppose sweatshops are your idea of a glorious free market economy?
The minimum wage for trainees is higher to reflect the further qualifications they have achieved and usually experience they have gained. When you take account of the 11k plus maintenance of say 7k spent on the LPC, the minimum trainee salary is actually less than the national minimum wage.
However totally agree with your last sentence. No need for trainees when there are so many redundancies, but this surely means the number of traineeships should be kept tight not expanded by making them cheaper.
No Problems
I'm sorry but I do not see the problem here. If you are good enough and can demonstrate this either at interview or by proving your worth to a firm, then you will be paid accordingly.
All of the students who state that they have invested in their own education will have, or ought to have, investigated the prospects of obtaining a TC at the end of their studies. The opportunites have always been limited and there has always been more applications than there are places.
As for exploitation, I'm afraid that this is a somewhat crass and misguided statement. There are also many candidates who have completed the LPC but can barely string a sentence together. On completion of the LPC, I'm afraid that it does not even begin to prepare you for real life practice. There is also an inherent cost (time and money) to a firm in training an individual.
Other options are available - Part time Study (I worked full time and studied Part Time during my degree and LPC). The ILEX route, which so many ignore (perhaps through snobbery?), means that a TC would not even be necessary!
Time for Law Students to get real and realise the profession does not owe anyone a living, as of right, just because they possess a degree and paid for the LPC. Sorry if that sounds harsh!
As I have argued previously, the smaller firms who cannot afford the wages may now be able to and so the profession can open up the training contracts. This may drive wages down for qualified solicitors but, then there will never be a happy medium! Ultimately, it is a matter of market forces and proving you are worth more to a firm than they are paying you.
NB There is NOTHING at the moment (that I am aware of) which prevents a law firm paying a fully qualified solicitor National Minimum Wage, which theoreticaly puts a Trainee in a better position than a NQ in any event.
Yet more evidence, if any
Yet more evidence, if any more were needed, of the clear intention of those in charge to dumb down the profession. When this step is combined with the soon to come further dumbing down of the training process, i.e. the scrapping of training contracts altogether, there will be little point in pretending we are even a profession any more.
At least this will allow the new ABS entrants into legal practice an easier passage, i.e. they won't have to worry about paying graduates even a reasonable salary and as for paying experienced qualified professionals the going rate...forget it. Silly me, that's been the plan all along hasn't it?
Oh my f***ing god...
I sold my house to pay some debts and reduce my outgoings in order to study law, first with OU, and then full time at a Uni. That was 6 years ago. Ive been surviving on a student loan. I have to find the money for the LPC this year also. Now I have no house, no money, my clothes are all old I have only 2 pairs of jeans and a suit I wear for law fairs, I live in a tiny room, all because I love law and I wanted to be a lawyer. My old wages would be 6 yrs at 20k per year = 120k (but I chose 3 yrs reduced earning while study OU, so 15k pa = 45k, plus full time Uni 3k pa student grant, total for 6 yrs 54k earned) so I've lost already 66k to get here! Now, student debt, im lucky, I studied at 3.5k fees, so with student loan my debt is 20k approx, plus LPC 13.5k = 33.5k debt. Add that 33k to my 66k loss for choosing this career = 99k down in 6 years! Best bit to come...... I now start on £6.08 an hour....
Um, oops!!!!
Say hi if you see me at liverpool st station, I'll be the one next to the homeless guy on the floor, wearing torn clothes holding a sign.. 'Trainee solicitor please give what you can'.
This reminds me of those toyota car ads, yrs ago, 'big small, put it in your dictionary'. Trainee lawyers, stupid smart, put it in your dictionary.
Btw, if anyone would like to make a donation pls contat the gazette. I need either £10 for some rope, or money for food cos I have £80 in my account today, and no more money to come
Then you're a damned
Then you're a damned fool!
Being a solicito has only ever been really good for a small number of the profession-and that number is getting smaller.
I would never instruct
I would never instruct someone who demonstrated such poor judgement. The world doesn't owe you a living and law like any profession entails risk. Your lack of commercial acumen would preclude you from excelling in any firm. I'm sorry but you should seek some advice on what to do next, and put this down to experience.
Sold a pup
And you have to put up with people like James. You were probably sucked in by a press and media who portrayed the law as ready to pour rich bounty on you. You probably saw the hourly rates and said I could live like a king on that. What you didn't see was the endless number of parasitic leeches sucking away at that hourly rate. The insurers, the SRA, the LSB and so many others. That is before you encountered the typically greedy legal employer who is ready for wages to be driven down and the profession ridiculously swelled in the name of diversity to aid this process. You've been sold a pup. Leave now or face virtual slavery in a vicious world.
I agree
I agree..... it is a disgrace that when you run a commercial concern in this country that there is a pack of bloom suckers trying to take your hard earned money....but the brave new world of driven down legal charges for basic compliance services will help adress this. A closed shop legal monopoly makes no sense to the broader public. Law should be the preserve of the brightest, well remunerated for their sharp intelligence. The dross compliance can be done at efficient ABS out of town processing centres where administration staff are supervised by legal professionals. This better future was inevitable and well publicised. You pays your money and takes your choice in life. No one is guaranteed a high paying job and let the above be a lesson to young people who need to know that in law if you can't cut the mustard you may very well earn the same as flipping burgers, because unless you have the ability you will be adding the same value as said burger flipper. Legal professionals should not hold themselves as being a special group.
No I just started studying
No I just started studying law because I liked the subject. I just figured I'd be on around 20k pa to start. I hadn't thought anymore about it. I like helping people. I help friends exploited by landlords, I help friends with motoring charges, and all sorts of things. It's nice to be able to help people who don't understand the law. I'm very good at it actually. I was pretty naive not looking years ahead, that is a fair point.
But please remember 6 years ago when I started studying the legal landscape was very different. No credit crunch yet at that time. I assumed there would be a career, I hadn't thought of the money, it's just what I wanted to do.
Thank you for making me feel even more stupid than I already do though
Mike, I apologise if I sound
Mike, I apologise if I sound rude and uncaring, what you are doing is highly commendable and I hope it works out. Unfortunately many young people are on your position and I sympathise. I just hope others think twice before commiting so much to the profession.
I just thought instead of
I just thought instead of being berated for giving up so much to do something I like, and being able to help people too, it might show committment. Now I'm not sure what to do. I'm sitting here supposed to be revising, and instead I am feeling like whats the point even taking the exam. It's ok don't worry
Yes, it does show
Yes, it does show commitment-but possibly not great judgment, although you're not alone in that.
The bust after the boom was not anticipated by many, even though it was inevitable. There really never has been enough legal work to go around, so when the profession was "opened up" the situation got worse.
The people with the commercial power are those able to bring in work to a firm. To do this you don't even need to be a solicitor (hence CMCs). You seem to be able to get work-so make that your business-and get the referral fee.
The people making money from law are not necessarily lawyers (just look how many law publications there are)!
No Good Reason
The comments that no other regulator fixes a salary isn't relevant. In what other profession can you incur the debts that you would in the legal profession and then be paid the national minimum wage? Doctors, Teachers, Accountants, I can't think of another profession where after 4 years of full time study you would be paid the national minimum wage. Other professions have pay bands or don't have this issue, so regulation isn't necessary. If other professions started paying minimum wage I'm sure that there would be uproar.
In terms of terms of the quality of the candidates that complete the LPC, if they are of poor quality then that is a reflection of the course... which is regulated by the SRA. In which case shouldn't the SRA be more concerned with making sure that the candidates are of good quality rather than abolishing the minimum salary?
You can be a good candidate with 2:1 from a red brick and good LPC who wants to work in a high street firm which doesn't pay LPC fees. You can't afford to be paid £11,000 a year and still pay back loans and live, so you either work for a firm who will pay for the LPC and doesn't do that type of work, or you save until you can afford to pay for the LPC and live on the minimum wage, which could take years. If you have wealthy parents, it's not an issue.
Disgusting
Are the SRA taking hints from the LSC on "how to respond to consultations"? The article above states that a minority of responses were favourable. Their response is to implement the reform.... that the minority supports.
Surely something this important would be a matter for a referendum or similar of all members??
The removal of the minimum wage (hardly a fortune in any event) is absolutely disgraceful. I was very lucky to study part time LPC, do a part time training contract and be paid (just) above the trainee minimum. I will be in debt for years to come. I do not think it is possible to train on the minimum wage, servicing debt for LPC, and survive. As in, I do not think you would be able to afford rent, bills, food. You would need either ANOTHER loan for training (to live), or parental support. Anyone not fortunate enough, regardless of ability, just couldn't do it.
What should be done with legal education?
a) raise entry standards for LPC
b) clamp down on number of providers
c) rein in providers fees
reduce number of LPC graduates each year, to come more into line with demand for training contract places.
The only plus point I can see
The only plus point I can see is as this is an hourly wage Trainees should be remunerated for the hours they actually work, not to do so would be literally criminal as it would drop the wage below the national minimum.
A 60 hour week would actually be an increase in pay from the current minimum
The problem is that outside
The problem is that outside the city firms, the whole profession is moving to a model where most work is sent by referrers to to bulk operators working on volume minimum wage operation. Just look at how many firms did conveyancing before the crash. The rumour was that one firm had had its fees ground down to £50 a transaction. PI works on a similar model.
There will not be any
There will not be any additional trainee posts, because there is already limited work, but those trainees that there are can now be paid less, and because so many are coming through the LPC and are desperate for the solicitor title, they will take the jobs.
Fast forward 10 years, some at the top will still have decent salaries, but many assistant solicitors will be working on the sorts of salaries paralegals are getting now. Plus why would a firm want to pay for lots of practising certificates? They will just let the NQs go.
The legal profession is a
The legal profession is a market. At the top end, the city firms will compete to get the very best trainees, and offer good salaries. At the bottom end, the high street, legal aid firms, and low cost bulk operations, there simply isn't the money to pay much more than the minimum wage anyway.
Missing the point?
Surely some of the above commentators are losing sight of the key issue here. As Paul Rogerson points out, the talk is all of increasing social mobility and widening access to the professions. How can some of you free market advocates not see that this decision makes a mockery of those lofty aims?
Goodbye law
I was weighing up the options inorder to decide whether to self fund an LPC or embark on a vocational route. I am 36 and tired of chasing wind. It sounds absurd to decide to lower trainee wage before the education and training overhaul and also to seperate the two. If LPC was linked to training contract then this proposal would be reasonable.
People who make these decisions they proclaim to represent all groups including including those with unsound financial background, but in my opinion (call me cynical) such proposals appear to have detrimental effect to those who are not financially priviledged.
Anyway i hang my boots, good buy law. There is a thin line between offering some commitment, (sacrifice, etc) and chasing wind. I will defer my LPC plan until further notice. In the mean time i will invest my time and resources somewhere else. GOODBYE LAW.............
Will it make a difference?
The idea behind this is that more law firms will take on more trainees? I wonder. At the moment lots of unscrupulous law firms take on paralegals, pay them a pittance and dangle the promise of a training contract in front of them. Will this change? Or will they now bleat about training requirements and admin and STILL not offer training contracts?
Hello Paralegal on £14k. Just
Hello Paralegal on £14k. Just stick it out for another two years and then we'll ask you to take a £3k pay cut and make you a trainee.
I can hear it already.
Crunch time....
There is a plausible analogy between this announcement and the pit closures of the 1980s. A traditional industry faces radical restructuring to meet the demands of Monopoly Capital; and the current demand is for Corporate Capital (ASBs) to move into the High Street in search of further Profit to hoover up at the expense of all those who just want to earn a living. The effect is magnified here because of all the mythical nonsense (among much other mythical nonsense in the UK media) about all lawyers being rich, so the effect is that much more extreme upon hopes and expectations.
(Sorry to sound like Dave Spart but the form doesn`t invalidate the content).
Do trainee solicitors deserve special treatment?
Some facts. 1. The SRA did not decide that all trainees should be paid the minimum wage. It agreed that there was no reason that trainee solicitors should be unique among the UK workforce and have their salaries set by a regulator rather than their employer. 2. This means that in future trainees will be in the same position as the rest of the UK workforce and employers will decide what salary to offer. A few will offer the minimum wage, most will not. This is what happens in the case of all other workers including paralegals, junior doctors, plumbers,teachers, architects, social workers, accountants etc etc. 3. Of course trainee solicitors should not be exploited and neither should any other employee - that is why we have a national minimum wage. For those who think this is inadequate to protect trainee solicitors, consider where your logic leads - should we have regulators established for all professions and trades to decide what their constituency should be paid above the national minimum and Imposing obligations on employers accordingly? 4. The cost of training does not make trainee solicitors different to many others professional or skilled people. In many jobs it is now necessary to get post graduate or specialist training and the student has to pay to receive the training. Such training does not guarantee employment and in most careers the long term salary prospects are no better than for solicitors. 5. No one serious about tackling diversity in access to the legal profession (or any other profession) regards a minimum salary above the minimum wage as a practical tool for achieving this. Much more relevant is the need to examine alternative paths to entry other than through a training contract and how far the LPC , and its associated cost, is fit for purpose and this is what is happening in the current training review - those concerned about access and diversity should be focussing on influencing this process: see http://letr.org.uk.
"A few will offer the minimum
"A few will offer the minimum wage, most will not. This is what happens in the case of all other workers including paralegals, junior doctors, plumbers,teachers, architects, social workers, accountants etc etc."
There are no junior doctors, teachers or social workers earning the minimum wage. Your argument is flawed in that these sectors do have prescribed "bands" of pay depending on your stage of qualification. Local authorities do not opt out and pay qualified professionals less than the lowest of the bands which is in the vast majority of cases well above the "law society minimum".
I agree that the LETR is important but this decision should not have been taken at least until the outcome of that review is known.
"Local authorities do not opt
"Local authorities do not opt out and pay qualified professionals less than the lowest of the bands which is in the vast majority of cases well above the "law society minimum"."
Most trainee solicitors are also paid well above the law society minimum and in many cases better paid than most equivalent profesionals. A number however are not. This range of remuneration reflects the fact that the legal profession is more fragmented than many other professions with a greater range and type of practices and employers eg City firms, large national firms, High Street practices, local authorites, legal aid practices etc. All the more reason why it is wholly inappropriate for a regulator to seek to set salary levels for such a diffuse market.
The reason that in all sectors it is the employer who determines what salary to offer is because it is the employer (and ultimately, in the case of solicitors, the client) who has to carry the cost. No regulator can 'second guess' this judgement which is why, subject to the protection of the statutory minimum wage, no other trade or profession has a regulator setting salaries.
Sign of the times
Along with Clarke and Djanogly's destruction of legal aid, this is yet another ill thought out policy that will wreck legal advice for those clients who cannot afford City firms. Trainees in smaller firms will now be expected to incur huge debts from university and the LPC, then to work for 2 years on the mimimum wage before earning the average legal aid salary of £25,000. Yet another way to destroy the chance of those who are bright and not just interested in money being able to do a socially useful job. Coalition policies from the SRA-Britain in 2012, we are not all in it together.
An absolute travesty
I completely do not understand why the SRA, an organisation that is essential for solicitors, rather than against them, can think that in any way this is a good idea. How on earth does this benefit the profession and foster a sustainable future for up and coming lawyers. This is yet another way to devalue the position of 'trainee solicitor', quite frankly it is quickly becoming 'just another graduate job', rather than an entry level position to a profession.
As someone who comes from a low income background, it has been an uphill struggle to get where I am today, I have felt like quitting many times. So I ask how will this new policy encourage economic diversity in the profession, the answer is it wont, it will stifle it. I now more than ever feel extremely sorry for anyone considering entering the profession.
There has to be a way to oppose or appeal this!
As a trainee solicitor, from
As a trainee solicitor, from a working class ethnic minority background - I must say that the biggest challenge to diversity in the profession is people's own state of mind. Surely, if you want to earn above the minimum wage, it is for you as an individual and 'professional' to prove your worth. I personally would not work for the minimum wage - having spent 20 years in education. That is the case both with or without a 'minimum salary' (which actually falls below the NMW when you consider the hours that some trainees are expected to work)
It is really a matter of knowing what you want, knowing your worth, and not settling for less.
Kieran makes a relevant point
Kieran makes a relevant point here. But I feel you need to not only know your worth but prove it too.
I am about to qualify and have been lucky enough to receive bonuses whilst working as a trainee and will be retained upon qualification.
However, due to my laziness throughout ages 16-23 I did not achieve anywhere near as highly as I could have at A-Level or University. In addition to this I lacked the motivation to gain the work experience and make the applications early on.
My career was set back by approximately 4 years by my own laziness and it was only once I started the LPC that I realised, with some panic, I had commited a lot of money to continuing in the profession and needed to work hard to ensure I was noticed so I could progress. I will continue to be limited by my early failures throughout my career.
My experience is a stark warning to those about to embark on the LPC without having secured a training contract. Especially in times where the SRA are withdrawing protection for trainees.
Of course the intention could be specifically to ensure that people like myself are not able to qualify as solicitors and I would consider that a great shame. My failure was in not maturing as quickly as I should have and as such didn't achieve as much as I should have early on. Those failures are not indicative of an inability to be a credit to the profession.
Whilst I genuinely pity those
Whilst I genuinely pity those who are crippled by debt and facing an uncertain future, I think that this decision was sensible and realistic. The legal service providers have been geeedy and encouraged far too many graduates to enrol on their courses, with the promise of a cushy job in the law. The reality is that there are far too many of us- its a question of supply and demand. We need to become more exclusive and only then will the profession regain some respect.
For those who cannot find work or cannot afford the pay, think about initiating a class action against the SRA and various law colleges.
Why people care whether the
Why people care whether the legal profession is respected or not is beyond me. Certainly doesn't affect my job or my productivity, or my results. I can't think of any profession that is truly respected, and they all roll on regardless.
Exclusivity isn't achieved by dropping the minimum salary, but by more stringent analysis of the required number of solicitors, averaged drop-off rates and setting the LPCs seat allocations according to these criteria. Yes, you can thin the herd by making it a dutch auction, but is that really attracting the brightest? People with big goals and expectations will be looking elsewhere for a career with more potential.
The decision was made to make it easier to run high volumes of files and still make a decent turn for the firm. That obviously isn't a ridiculous idea, firms have to make money to hire trainees after all. Dressing it up any other way is transparent though.
A dismal message
I am appalled by this feeble decision from a bunch of white, middle aged, out of touch, unelected, petty bureaucrats. The legal profession has huge problems with social mobility and diversity already and this plainly ill informed decision is a massive set back.
Shocking
How can the SRA proceed with this knowing that it will discriminate against certain groups. Surely the role of the SRA is to promote equality for all!!!
Can this not be challenged?
Trainee salaries
Yet another example of the legal profession sliding downhill.
This profession is being brought into disrepute by claims companies so called 'regulated' by the Ministry of Justice, but actually ripping people off. Because of the failure to properly regulate a profession that had worked behind closed doors for so many years that it didn't know how to respond to market forces, or how to expand and diversify without the public losing faith, or without the profession losing its integrity.
As soon as some legal services were provided by non-solicitors the drops in standard commenced. The training contract minimum salary loss is just another symptom of a profession that has lost it's way. Instead of attracting the brightest and the best, it attracts the richest.
Well we all know the result of having the richest in the top jobs don't we. We are living it with this government.
Trainee Salaries
Has an impact assessment been carried out. Anybody fancy a JR?
This is truly disappointing.
This is truly disappointing. Having spent upwards of £45,000 to educate myself, I will be guaranteed the same minimum salary as someone who has taken a job straight from school. This is just one more decision that will cause more elitism in the legal sector. Disgraceful.
Master plan
I wonder whether some of the above posters have worked out the Agenda which is as follows:-
OLD MODEL
Senior Partner with secretary
Equity Partner with secretary
Equity Partner with secretary
Salaried Partner with secretary
Salaried Partner with secretary
Salaried Partner with secretary
Salaried Partner with secretary
Associate with secretary
Associate with secretary
Associate with secretary
Associate with secretary
Associate with secretary
Associate with secretary
Associate with secretary
Associate with secretary
Assistant Solicitor with secretary
Assistant Solicitor with secretary
Assistant Solicitor with secretary
Assistant Solicitor with secretary
Assistant Solicitor with secretary
Paralegal with legal qualifications (ofren pre-trainee position) with no secretary or pool
Paralegal with legal qualifications
Paralegal with legal qualifications
Paralegal with legal qualification
Paralegal with legal qualifications
Trainee Solicitor - use of training Principal's secretary.
Trainee Solicitor
Law clerk (Bright school leaver with A-levels)
NEW MODEL IN A POST ABS LEGAL WORLD
Shareholder and board of directors including shareholders with legal qualifications.
Managing Director / CEO - possibly an accountant
Operations Director
Sales and Marketing Director
Legal Director
Head of Department - likely to be a qualified lawyer,although not necessarily so.
Supervisor - senior lawyer
Manager - likely to be a qualified lawyer
Team leader - likely to be a qualified lawyer
Team 1
Paralegal who could just be an office worker who can use a computer.
Paralegal
Paralegal
Paralegal
Paralegal
Paralegal
Paralegal
Paralegal
Paralegal
Paralegal
As there is no minimum educational requirement for a paralegal it is quite possible that an 18 year old school leaver, who can use a computer, will be employed as well as candidates with legal qualifications or degrees in other subjects.
Why is there going to be a dramatic change in how legal services will be delivered in the near future?
1. Old system is regarded as inefficient offering a poor service to the "customer".
2. The old system is regarded as being too expensive with too many mediocre lawyers on high salaries.
3. There is not enough competition in the law to ensure legal fees are driven down.
3. The Legal Service Act 2007 is the enabling Act to address 1,2 and 3.
If you agree with the above then the question arises as to why there are so many instituitions offering law courses costing thousands of pounds when there is a massive oversupply of lawyers or wannabe lawyers under the old system. The plight of prospective solicitors will be significantly worse when the new system gradually replaces the old system.
Irrespective as to whether the new system is right or wrong that is what is going to happen shortly.
Great post, very accurate
Great post, very accurate representation of the problem in my opinion. General public (and therefore most aspiring 1st year undergrads) still see the profession as being your "old model". As soon as this perceptions shifts, we should have a more realistic churn of legal professionals.
Minimum wage
I note that yesterday, 17 May 2012, the Law Society criticized the decision to scrap the minimum wage. Their announcement said that the minimum wage “plays a crucial role in promoting equality of opportunity and acts as a safeguard to avoid exploitation”. It also said, that, “the threat to diversity in the profession was even highlighted by the SRA's equalities impact assessment”. Furthermore, in its prior consultation response, the Law Society referred to the Legal Education and Training Review and said:
“The regulation of the minimum salary for trainee solicitors should not, in our view, be dealt with as a discrete issue. Instead, it would more appropriately be addressed within the wider scope of the Review, or alternatively, post-Review when the SRA consults on any changes to the education and training regime that it proposes to make”.
There has been mention in these post of Judicial Review and given the Law Society’s strongly expressed views it must be incumbent on them to be actively considering challenging the SRA decision.