Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

As a former Training Principal I have viewed the new proposals with interest. Anon at 5.50pm has a point. Since about 2009 I have had the impression that more TC applicants are privately educated (my firm didn't monitor this particular statistic: it is a personal impression), reflecting the great cost of becoming a solicitor, and the huge risk if you are not from a moneyed background.

These proposals are consistent with the wish to open up the profession to those who cannot afford to seek to qualify in the way which was required between 1980 and now (degree, CPE if not a law degree, LPC, training contract). The idea of the SQE is that whatever permitted route folks take to qualify, the SQE will ensure that all who qualify will attain the same minimum standard. While I am sceptical that this can be achieved, I think the intention is laudable.

As for the SQE being derided as some sort of 'LPC lite', and it will allow those unfitted to the profession to become solicitors: well, surely we have all come across solicitors (qualifying via the LPC) whose grasp of the law and professional ethics was somewhat shaky?

The practice of law, and how you got to be a solicitor, has changed greatly over the years, and it is unrealistic to expect the process required for the last 35 years to remain unchanged whatever happens.

As for public opprobrium of lawyers: anon at 5.32 has a point.
"And thus the most opprobrious fame
Attends upon the attorney's name.
Nay, the professors seem ashamed
To have their legal title named;
Unless my observation errs
They're all become Solicitors."

From 'The English Dance of Death', 1815.

If embarrassed to be solicitors, perhaps we should revert to calling ourselves attorneys instead?

Your details

Cancel