Study to examine oversupply of LPC graduates
An in-depth study into education and training within the profession will address the current ‘mismatch’ between the number of Legal Practice Course graduates and training contracts, and will assess the role of paralegals, the Legal Services Board has said.
Shedding further light on the forthcoming training review which was announced by the Solicitors Regulation Authority last November, the profession’s overarching regulator said it would look at supply and demand in the market.
As oversight regulator, the LSB will work with the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board to ensure that the training review addresses the relevant issues.
In its draft business plan for 2011/12, the LSB said: ‘As the market changes [with the advent of alternative business structures], the existing education and training framework needs to evolve to meet new conditions and changed needs.
‘We will assess how education and training requirements an be used as a regulatory tool to ensure the acquisition and maintenance of proper standards of professional and ethical competence across the legal workforce.
‘To deliver this, we will work with approved regulators to develop a strategic assessment of the likely education and training needs of the legal workforce at all levels in 2020.
‘The focus of this work will stretch across all stages, from non-graduate entry routes and undergraduate degree level, through to qualification, continuing professional development and post-qualification quality assurance.
‘Issues concerning capacity and supply will also be examined, including the current mismatch between the numbers of students completing the vocational stage of training (Legal Practice Course/Bar Professional Training Course) and the number of training contracts and pupillages available across the market.’
The paper said: ‘Continuing the focus on entry, we will explore the expanding role played by paralegals in providing services (with or without supervision from a qualified lawyer) without regulatory requirements regarding competency standards and training.
‘A particular focus will be on defining the key principles for education and training requirements that should be part of the regulatory framework. We will use these as a point of reference when considering rule change applications that relate to education and training.’
It added: ‘An important step will be to determine whether additional regulatory requirements are needed post- qualification to tackle risk of consumer detriment, particularly in the context of increasing specialisation.
‘We will continue to work with the JAG on the development of the Quality Assurance for Advocates Scheme as one initial vehicle for this work, ensuring that the proposals that emerge are adequate in terms of the principles we have set for the Scheme.’
Last week, former bar chairman Nick Green QC said the burgeoning body of paralegals will have a massive impact on solicitors and barristers.
Comments
Please define "paralegal" and other legal personnel
It would be sensible if the study actually defined the term "paralegal" which is often used yet appears to have many meanings.
My definition of "paralegal" is as follows:-
A paralegal is a person who works in a law practice as an assistant to a qualified lawyer and deals with aspects of case files for the qualified lawyer. Such a person may have no qualifications (legal or other qualifications) but many paralegals do hold legal qualifications despite this not being a requirement. A paralegal should not be confused with a qualified or unqualified person who has his/her own caseload and is often referred to as a feeearner.
My definition of a feeearner is as follows:-
A "feeearner" is a either a person who is a qualified lawyer responsible for a caseload or an unqualified person (sometimes referred to as "executive" but not to be confused with "legal executive" or a paralegal) who in effect does the job of a lawyer by dealing with most or all aspects of the cases, albeit under the supervision of a qualified lawyer.
My definition of a qualified lawyer is a follows:-
A feeearner who has legal status in law to carry out one or more of the "reserved activities" as laid down by the Legal Services Act 2007.
I fully appreciate that many of the older solicitors and barristers may not agree with many of the changes in the legal profession but my point is not about who should be entitled to be lawyers and who should not, I am just concerned that the term "paralegal" seems to be used in a rather unhelpful way. For example, I received an e-mail from someone with "paralegal" in bold type under her name and below that it said Asociate Istitutute of Legal Executives. Well I know FILEX are classified as lawyers and I noted that there may be a difference between "Associate" and "Fellow" but I thought how demeaning to the female who sent the e-mail whom may have passed many legal exams at night school only to be put in the same category as possibly a secretary with no qualifications or interest in the law who deals with aspects of case files - a paralegal. I do not wish to offend secretaries though some of whom end up as solicitors.
It would seem highly probable that the post October 2011 ABS legal world will go for the cheapest option - feeearners with few or no qualifications and paralegals (as per my definition) without any qualifications. The LPC graduates who apply for feeearner and paralegal positions may be just too clever!
In the words of John Cleese, the solution to the over supply of LPC graduate is "bleeding obvious"
when you look at the legal horizon from October 2011 onwards.
The difficulty with the legal
The difficulty with the legal services market is that there is no logical definition of what constitutes a legal service. There can therefore be no logical definition of a legal practitioner.
Naturally there is the definition of "reserved matters"-but there is no real logic to why these matters should be reserved (as shown by the recent study on these-although that seemed to indicate that conveyancing services should be reserved-but no definition of that was given!).
As the Presidents column states, the consumer expects a quality service but is unimpressed by those matters which occupy the Law Society and the SRA (e.g.ethics, financial protection) to such a large extent.
The ABS's will be staffed in the main by non-solicitors. The truth is that the qualification of "solicitor" is really just a hangover from the 19th century and is no longer necessary for the delivery of legal services.
LPC diplomates
May I suggest that when reference is made to those who have gained the Diploma in Legal Practice they are referred to as 'diplomates' rather thang 'graduates'. The great majority of them are already graduates - the only exceptions are likely to be Fellows of the Institute of Legal Executives.
"The truth is that the
"The truth is that the qualification of "solicitor" is really just a hangover from the 19th century and is no longer necessary for the delivery of legal services."
I couldnt have put it better myself. There are also plenty already delivering legal services who do not employ a 'solicitor' at all which doesnt seem to be recognised in the definitions by the posters above.
Mismatch
Yes there is a mismatch between the number of training contracts and the number of LPC graduates. But this is further exacerbated by this inflexible approach of recruiting two years in advance. The argument for such a policy is that it creates certainty for the financial planning of the business and social mobility as it allows the majority of law firms to fund graduates LPC.
Well as we have seen by this recession by planning so far ahead without any flexibility actually creates greater liabilities, look at the number of deferrals and the way in which law firms had to pay out more to students to delay their start. Not to mention the number of students failing exams on their LPC and not having their training contract revoked. Finanlly the issue of social mobility while a fine and noble gesture by the law firms actually works in reverse. Unfortunately the hard working kids from poorer backgrounds who have had to expend all their time on their studies will not get a look in because when it comes to the review of their application they won't have the stand out criteria often asked my law firms such as setting up an orphanage in Africa. The result is that the wealthier students end up having their LPCs paid for them despite they are the ones who can afford it.
The law firms would be better recruiting half and half, arranging for half their intake for two years in advance and the remaining amount on an annual basis like the accountancy and investment banks do. It would create greater flexibility and actually ensure a higher calibre of trainee.
Why should law firms do
Why should law firms do this?
It's an inconvenience to them.
Recruiting two years in advance means that they getting students that are young and up and coming.
Half and Half would mean that law firms would be getting applications from students that weren't able to get a TC the first time round. The market is too competitive to give second chances.
That's just the way it is.
The solution is not to spend money on the LPC unless you have a training contract. It's really very simple.
If a students wishes to take the risk and pay for the LPC, without a job offer in place, then that is his or her problem and firms should not be expected to accommodate silly risk takers.
I completely agree with
I completely agree with Mismatch's remarks on the above debate. I am currently an LPC student having completed my law degree last year. At the moment I am very stressed not with my exams but finding a job once my studies finish in June. I am one of the many LPC students who could not ask for a hand out from "daddy" to pay my fees and so have taken out a bank loan to progress my studies. My fear however is that I will not have a job in law by the time I must start paying this loan back (from July every month for the next 5 years). Applying for training contracts for 2013/ 2014 seems ridiculously far off and would put my legal career on stand by until this time. Further to previous comments I agree that it is difficult to even find work as a paralegal as firms seem to want to employ people with atleast 1 years experience working in an office not people who have completed their lpc...with 2.1 law degrees and heaps of work experience in free time...
guess thats the price you pay to get an education...
It was YOUR choice to
It was YOUR choice to self-fund the LPC.
You could have waited, until you secured a training contract/solid job offer on completion of the course, but instead you took the RISK. Everyone, including yourself knows the very harsh odds of securing a training contract [if you didn't know then caveat emptor], it was your decision to take and you took it so don't complain now!
Sorry but paying for the LPC
Sorry but paying for the LPC without having a training contract in place is irresponsible and stupid.
You only have yourself to blame.
Your fear should be whether you are going to get a job at all even in the future.
In case you hadn't noticed law is a contracting industry.
It is a risk...
However, it is not necessarily a futile risk. I am one such LPC graduate who had not secured a TC during my year on the GDL. I have now worked for a further (what will be) 2 years after my LPC before I start my TC in September.
I have friends who have applied to the same firms over and over for many years in an effort to secure a TC before starting their LPC only to be turned down again and again. Ironically in 3 instances the moment they have their LPC on their CV they have secured exactly the type of TC they were looking for. I believe that larger commercial and city firms are somewhat wary of graduates who have not committed to the LPC. They are perfectly willing to pay fees, but not to people who are not dedicated enough to want to pay them themselves.
I absolutely agree that if you take the risk to self fund the LPC you cannot complain about the debt, however, advocating a rethink of the graduate recruitment process is not the same as saying "its not fair, firms should think about people like me just because I have funded the LPC myself" which is what some of these comments seem to suggest...
All the best to those still looking for TCs!
I agree with mismatch and the
I agree with mismatch and the previous comment not having the bank of 'daddy'. I had to do my LPC part time to fund my course as well as workin full time. In that period I have found it increasingly difficult to get a training contract or even a job as a paralegal. I have either been over qualified or not having enough experience. There is a problem with the LPC it is no longer just about gaining the professional qualification which in all honesty does not get a person ready for the working life. But instead it has become a chance for these legal insitiutions just to make money. Getting a training contract is longer about what you know but who you know. The legal profession will always be am elitist area to work in unless the receuiters are also dealt with.
"not about what you know but
"not about what you know but who you know"
So what are you doing about this?
Are you going to law fairs? Legal events? Careers talks? Firm open days? Meeting up with qualified lawyers for coffee? Applying for vac schemes everywhere? Applying for informal, speculative work experience? Going to business events to increase your commercial contacts? Calling up law firms, getting the emails of lawyers and arranging meetings?
If you are not doing all of the above, then you only have yourself to blame.
I went to a school where less than half of students achieved 5 GCSE's. I graduated from an ex-poly university and still managed to get a TC with leading firm, who also funded my LPC.
I used to be bitter about rich kids, as you are, but as soon as I learnt to let them get on with it and work out how to improve my own chances, I progressed.
It is perfectly possible to get a TC regardless of your background.
Your choice to take the
Your choice to take the risk.
Don't blame anyone but yourself.
No one in their right mind would self-fund the LPC in this day and age.
See above. Law is a contracting industry.
The best thing you can do is go bankrupt to clear your loan and then start again. This time use your brain and do some research on the probability of success.
I have done all of these
I have done all of these things, as well as working full time, studying part time, I volunteer with 2 organisations in the legal sector every opportunity I have I network and go on placements.
And to say that no one in their right mind will self fund LPC, then my apologises that you have not met the generation of people that are more than happy to fund it themselves buy not getting a bank loan to support them. Nor have you met the graduates who have come out with £20k debt and do not want to increase this debt.
To the person that says all poor do is complain...clearly you are mistaken I am from a working background I have worked non stop since I was 16 to so I could never rely on handouts. I don't complain I just get on with it and know when the time is right all this hard work I have done will pay off.
Some of the comments made have been misinformed or just plain rude.
You just don't get it do
You just don't get it do you?
The point is you are wasting your time. Can't you take the hint?
There are far too many solicitors and law graduates.
The issue is massive over supply and you don't solve that by increasing the numbers.
You are so naive. Your hard work will not pay off.
It's simply a matter of economics.
You have been misinformed by your University and College of Law. They have just used you to make money and thrown you to the wolves.
Sorry but that is the cold hard fact.
Don't lump universities
Don't lump universities offering law degrees and the CoL together. Most respectable unis promote their law degrees as being high quality liberal arts degrees which happen to provide partial qualifying status to those who want it. Unlike Savage at the CoL, who seems to have suggested in recent articles that law degrees are only about training for practice, university academics (many of whom have PhDs rather than solicitor or barrister status) want to educate students about law's place in society etc.
Anon above makes a great
Anon above makes a great point.
You should be doing more and taking opportunity where you can.
That's the trouble with poorer people, all they know is how to complain that they don't have a good start yet they do nothing to help themselves.
Last year I tried to help a poor student by offering a vacation placement and introduction to some of the partners I know.
She declined because it wasn't quite what she wanted.
Of course, she is unemployed now.
Some people are getting training contracts so ask yourself what is the difference between them and you? I'll go out on a limb here and say it's probably your attitude.
The trouble with poorer people
Well if you are the type of chap who goes around calling others "poorer peole" I would take her decline more personally rather than a reflection of her willingness to take opportunities. It's obvious by the manner in which you comment and how you tried to help her out why she declined.
Not at all. There were no
Not at all.
There were no references to money or class etc.
The opportunity went instead to a well-mannered, respectful, humble, well- spoken and presentable middle class chap. He's now doing very well.
I guess he must have realised the potential of the opportunity. Good luck to him.
I guess the difference is class.
You can't teach that.
"it has become a chance for
"it has become a chance for these legal institutions to just make money".
Well, no s**t, Sherlock!
Of course that's what they do! That's precisely what many of the "universities" also do. The idea that graduates make more money than non-graduates is the biggest load of rubbish that was ever fed to a generation by politicians who wanted to be elected so they could feather their own nests.
Some graduates make more money than some non-graduates. It all depends on the supply and demand for each-isn't that a shock-not!
There are far too many "lawyers" and therfore the price has been driven down.
Expectations of interesting work and commensurate remuneration are usually far from realistic-there are much more rewarding (both intellectually and financially) careers available where hard work and ambition will produce greater returns.
And by the way they aren't "regulated" by pompous, self righteous bureaucrats who live off your efforts.
Spot on. I don't think one
Spot on.
I don't think one can add to that.
Even now final year law students still believe that they are going to be highly rewarded professionals doing interesting and challenging work.
A few maybe but the majority are heading for the waste bin.
Schools need to teach supply/demand fundamentals.
Have you worked out ABS "Tesco law" yet?
Qualified lawyer
Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor
Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal
Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal
Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal
Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal Paralegal
The above is a kind of intelligence test. A person with average intelligence should be able to work out the significance of the above when answering the brain buster question of what should be done
about the "mismatch " between LPC diplomates and training contracts. A person of average intelligence should also be able to have a good idea as to the likely future pay and status of lawyers post October 2011 and the likely numbers of paralegals.
You would like to think
You would like to think solicitors are of average intelligence.
I'm starting to doubt it. Just look at the numbers flocking to the LPC.
I run two businesses and I would never instruct a solicitor to assist me.
Yes he/she may know the law (debatable in some cases) but the skill should be in applying the law to achieve outcome for the client. If solicitors don't understand businesses and how they operate what's the point?
If they did understand how markets work, then they would get out of law given the supply/demand fundamentals.
Look at the two students above fussing over their "careers" in law. What career? What being redundant? Don't they understand there is no market for the service and this is why they are having such great difficulty? This is exactly what I mean. Would I instruct either? Certainly not!!!
Nothing new
I have been a qualified solicitor since 2005, working in Personal Injury for nearly ten years in total. As far as I am aware this is how most litigation departments are set up now anyway.
Too Many LPC Students
Some ground rules:
You need to have LLB (Hons) but the grade is not so important.
Try to study some interesting subjects like Legal History and Jurisprudence. That gives you breadth of legal knowledge and intellectual depth. It also gives you interest as a student as you are not just doing boring Commercial subjects of course...
Rather than watching X Factor, would it be more use to read as widely as possible in politics, current affairs, science or whatever your academic discipline is (whilst thy still have them at uneeee)
Try helping out with some admin at any firm but usually as at least two above hre say much smaller firms first. More chance of being taken on I suspect...
Work experience at gilded cages in the city also quite common. Forget it...
I must confess I used to have a bad attitude and blame all and sundry and public schools etc ... etc.. Until I realised that there is no different (other than in real class attitude as one said above).. I was also looking for a TC at p*** poor 'city / city 'wannabe' firm and it took me a good 2-3 years to realise it wasn't going to happen. I got a better training with a smaller firm.
You can the best smaller firms are actually very very rough and ready and stressful and on a knife edge, but the one thing they are are truly meritocratic and gender and race non discriminative..
It is true that it is despicable that they ever allowed this situation to occur. The old LSF had a failure rate of (in some institutions (like Wolves Poly)), 35% (then suddenly 80-90% after continual assessment and open book exams, so the students literally did (miraculously) get 2- 2.5 x more intelligent overnight!). The LSF was banded and modulated.. After passing it (if one did, (and many partners sons and daughters at City firms did not!) ) it was like viewing the battle field of the Somme... literally... Plenty of TC's then..
Limiting the LPC to those
Limiting the LPC to those with a training contract would certainly be a good start!
In terms of getting a TC, recruiting 2 years in advance seems non-sensical. How anybody is able to confidently assert what type of law they want to do whilst in their second year of university, is beyond comprehension. Unless you have been lucky enough to have done practical work experience in the very area in which you hold interest, prior to the age of 20! Filing and office admin and the odd observational role isnt enough.
Large law firms like to get
Large law firms like to get students that are at the start of their career.
That's the whole point of a training contract. The trainee gets an idea of what area he/she would like to practice during the training contract.
The firm's only concern is that the trainee has solid academic fundamentals in place before starting a training contract. This provides some assurance that the trainee has the calibre to learn at the required rate.
Prior experience is only really necessary for small firms that don't have the resources to properly train solicitors or a paralegal role because paralegals are expected to hit the ground running.
People are understandably bitter. They have spent money on legal education and have nothing to show for it.
I would never have started the LPC without securing a training contract. It doesn't make any sense to do that.
It's fashionable to blame the law society but I think the law society has taken the view that people should take responsibility for their own decisions. Perhaps the law society also thought that people who don't secure a training contract would behave rationally and do something else rather than self-fund the LPC.
The only solution is to stop people subscribing to the LPC without having a training contract in place. If people can't be trusted to behave rationally then this will have to be enforced for everyone's benefit (there's no point adding to university debts if there aren't enough training contracts)
Well, the Law Society should
Well, the Law Society should have publicised the fact that there are far too many entrants (of whatever "status") into the legal profession.
But probably it was more than happy with the PR that the legal profession was getting, not to mention the increase in income from the vast rise in the number of practising certificates.
It is invariably the case that "empire" leads to decline.
But why should the law
But why should the law society publicise this?
If LPC students are educated, is it not reasonable for the Law Society to assume that they will make rational decisions about their own futures.
Is it not the responsibility of the individual to properly research the market for the services or goods he or she wishes to provide?
If I wanted to be a doctor, I wouldn't expect the General Medical Council to do the research for me. I would look into this very carefully before committing a lot of time, money and energy.
Rudeness
I completed an LPC and have not got a training contracft, am I bitter about it? No. I am not bitter and I don't envy those with a training contract. What I do notice on this message board is the rudeness of qualified lawyers. The feeling of superiority over those who have not got a training contract yet. Why arethey so arrogant? Why do they think we're all thick and they so clever? Deep down I think these people are quite insecure and worried about their own future because of the numbers of LPC graduate or diplomates and the competition they face. They should reflect on one simple fact. In countries like the USA there is no such thing as a training contract. You simply pass a bar exam (probably more difficult than the LPC mind) and you are a lawyer. The market decides if you are any good but you are a lawyer. Why do solicitors fear more competition? If the Colleges churn out rubbish lawyers the market will correct it because firms will only hire the good graduates, with good grades, experience and interpersonal skills, the rest will just be unemployed lawyers.
Well said!!!
Well said!!!
Ok so because you don't have
Ok so because you don't have a training contract then you are the rubbish that the College of Law has churned out?
Your words!!
Personal attacks
I am not the rubbish that the College of Law churns out. I don't think straight A levels and a Distinction could ever be called rubbish! I have a job as a paralegal so I am not unemployed. I was making the point that the training contract is essentially a restrictive practice not used by other jurisdictions - certainly not for 2 years! Supporters of the training contract can't answer the simple question of why it is that in most countries you pass a bar exam (often very difficult) and are qualified but here you need to be under supervision for 2 years just to call yourself a lawyer.
No one is attacking you. You
No one is attacking you.
You just made a silly opening statement.
To answer your quesion.
The training contract is a structured programme that ensure qualified solicitors receive a complete training programme: a mixture or academic and vocational training.
You have good academics but frankly so what!
Ok so you are working as a paralegal again so what!
As a paralegal you will be doing low level cheap work, you are not getting the experience that will enable you to practice at the highest level.
If you are as good as you say you are, you would already have a training contract rather than taking second best.
You are contradicting yourself!!
"I completed an LPC and have not got a training contract"
"Why do they think we're all thick and they so clever"
"If the Colleges churn out rubbish lawyers the market will correct it because firms will only hire the good graduates...the rest will just be unemployed lawyers"
You have just basically contradicted your own argument there mate---your intelligence seemingly speaks for itself!!!!
Proving the point
I try to debate the issues than engage in personal attacks so I won't fall to your level. Your personal attack on me rather proves the main point I was making. I don't think I'm thick. I think I could do what the qualified lawyers do easily. I got pretty good grades and I work as a paralegal. I finished the LPC last year so I won't give up yet. I have spoken to many qualified lawyers who have all told me that it's hard work AND luck that got them their training contract or pupillage. Intelligent people know that there are many paralegals with qualifications who would make excellent lawyers but for all sorts of reason they have not been successful. I have met many qualified solicitors whose legal knowlege and advocacy skills are quite ropey so I don't rate the training contract very highly. I believe in real competition over restrictive practices - benefiting the consumer, perhaps that's what some lawyers are afraid of?
"I try to debate the issues
"I try to debate the issues than engage in personal attacks so I won't fall to your level"
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are the one that started giving details about your own personal attributes...thus they are open to debate!
Powerful argument
Powerful argument there, I give limited information about myself and this opens me up to personal attacks.
This issue is people can tell
This issue is people can tell you are young because your views/statements are hollow and devoid of deep understanding.
I'll pick out one statement you made as an example
"I believe in real competition over restrictive practices - benefiting the consumer"
How does competition benefit the consumer in a service driven sector? Competition deflates wages and eventually attracts low quality staff. Look at conveyancing. Does the consumer really benefit from the low fees? The evidence suggests not. Conveyancing attracts the greatest number of negligence claims and the greatest number of complaints for poor service. The reality is the fees are so low no cares about doing a good job in conveyancing. This is the true effect of unrestrained competition.
In contrast the highest calibre staff are in banking, celebrity, sports, entertainment and senior public sector positions where the financial rewards/perks are very good because of the absence of competition. absence of competition attracts the best staff and the quality of service is there to match.
I mean no offence to you but when you get older you will look at things in a more rounded way. Then you will realise that the career you have chosen is not going to reward you in the way you think!
At least 40% reduction in lawyers post October 2011
Many of the above posters do not get it. Whether you like it or not the coaltion have decided to not to scrap Alternative Business Structures (ABSs) or "Tesco law" and will have to take responsibility for the impending disaster that will follow their introduction. A group of reckless policy makers have decided in collaboration with city financiers that the law is ripe for a killing. Big business will move in big time post October 2011 and turn 90% of the legal profession into the legal equivalent of a Wetherspoons pub chain. General office workers will be employed in the main and there will be an army of paralegals supervised by a few qualified lawyers. Low level litigation and advocacy will be undertaken by lawyers earning significantly less than they are now. Look at the signs of change, tranches of law firms being taken off the panels of the banks, the convenient emergence of the solicitors from hell website and people with city connections and political agendas serving on legal quangos. One has to respect the very British coup against the legal profession and I cannot help wondering whether there are any really smart people in the legal profession in view of the weak defence against the ABS lobby who have totally won.
Now the battle is lost the key question is why is this country producing more legally trained people when the future legal profession will require significantly less and is it morally defensible for colleges and universities to take thousands of pounds of law students who are surplus to the needs of the legal profession?
Legally trained population
With significants to civil legal aid, maybe having lots of legally trained people among the general population is not such a bad thing? But your point is sound, there is no doubt that the legal profession is being deprofessionalised - at least at the lower end.
Yes it's the end of a once
Yes it's the end of a once respected profession.
But honestly I don't think ABS will make much difference to the high street.
Most high street firms are going bust because people don't want the services of a high street solicitor anymore.
The market just is not there anymore.
I r