Janet Paraskeva sets out the case for rethinking the structure of the legal training framework and offering a smoother route to qualification

‘The old approach based on the paternalism of the professions and the blind trust of clients, patients, pupils and customers is consigned to history. The new professionals have to be responsive to the needs and wishes of the people they serve and they have to reflect the broad sweep of modern society.’


So Sir Alan Langlands commented in his recently published report Gateways to the professions. Sir Alan was asked to look at entry requirements for the professions, particularly in the context of the introduction of top-up fees next year. The Department for Education and Skills agreed with the report and its view that the professions should develop more flexible routes to qualification.


At almost the same time, the Department for Constitutional Affairs wrote in its response to the Legal Services Consultative Panel report Diversity in the legal profession: ‘The government wishes to see the legal profession adopting modern practices for recruitment and selection, as well as making certain that there is equality of opportunity in their career.’


These comments reflect building pressures on the current training regime. The way in which the profession is structured has changed. The profile of new entrants, their educational opportunities, and experiences are different. A training framework to meet these challenges, maintain standards of entry, and ensure that the profession is attractive to the most able people from all backgrounds was required. The Law Society’s training framework review aims to give opportunities to potential solicitors, flexibility to employers, and confidence to the public and users of the system.


The Law Society has consulted extensively with solicitors, legal education providers, student bodies and others on our plans. Consultation with the profession and other stakeholders during the summer showed that concerns still existed. We have listened carefully to those concerns, and we have taken them into account. There is strong support for moving towards a more responsive, open and outcomes-focused training framework, but to do so incrementally so that the changes can be understood by all of the users of the legal system.


Proposals along these lines were discussed at the Law Society Council meeting last week. There are three key changes now being promoted: to make the delivery of the legal practice course (LPC) more flexible, and to allow for individuals with appropriate equivalent qualifications to apply for exemption from relevant parts of the course; to make the assessment of work-based learning more objective and rigorous than the current training contract ‘sign off’, while allowing learning in different practice contexts to contribute to the qualification requirement; and to introduce an element of centrally set assessments.


These proposals allow course providers and firms to continue down the traditional LPC and training contract route – subject to more rigorous assessment – if they choose to do so. But we hope that students, firms and course providers will approach training and qualification in a truly outcomes-based way.


What will the proposals mean in practice? We expect that most students will still have to complete an LPC but some could be given an exemption from parts of the course because of their prior equivalent qualifications. We will consider allowing electives to be studied independently of the core modules on the LPC, where such flexibility would be welcomed.


New compulsory and centrally set assessments that would cover financial and business skills and also professional conduct will be introduced. We expect that computer-based testing using technology and facilities similar to that used for driving theory tests will be involved. Probate may also become subject to the same kind of assessment, as it is a reserved area of work that is not currently examined on the LPC.


Many in the profession accept that a more objective and thorough assessment of trainees’ performance while in practice is required. We will develop a system that recognises both the profession’s concerns about increased demands on supervising and assessing trainee solicitors, and the significance of the decision taken at the end of the period to allow a trainee to be admitted as a solicitor. Good firms should not expect to see any significant additional burdens as they will already be doing many of the things required, such as appraisals, and planned learning and development.


What happens next? The new, independent regulation board, chaired by Peter Williamson, adopts its powers on 1 January. It will look at the detail of implementation and announce when and how the plans that have resulted from the consultation with the profession will be introduced. After that, it is up to the profession. The Law Society is confident of the advantages that the new system presents. Together, we are creating a training framework that benefits solicitors’ firms, potential entrants to the profession and users of the legal system.


Janet Paraskeva is the Law Society chief executive