Peter Williamson explains why fresh guidance is needed on the experience non-EU lawyers should have before they can qualify here


When they consult a solicitor, members of the public are entitled to expect to be dealing with somebody who has been adequately trained and practises competently.



That position, with which I imagine virtually all of you would agree, cannot be negotiable. To allow some solicitors to have different standards from others would be completely against the interests of consumers. Acceptance of a lower tier of competence would be the beginning of a slippery slope to inferior professional standards overall.



Some of you may be surprised that about one-fifth of the solicitors who have qualified since 1995 had already qualified in certain other jurisdictions or had already been a barrister in England and Wales. Unless they had been granted an exemption, these people were required to pass up to four exams and show that they had two years’ experience of legal practice in order to transfer to an England and Wales qualification. In 2006-07, nearly 30% of these transferees were from Australia, New Zealand, the USA and Canada. Another 8.8% were from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.



The overwhelming majority of those who qualified abroad are skilled practitioners doing an excellent job. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is committed to enabling such people to practise in England and Wales. However, professional regulation is largely about concentrating on risks, which are often confined to relatively small numbers of practitioners or situations.



We are concerned about the current transfer system for several reasons. The guidelines on the experience required are vague, creating the risk of inconsistent or unfair decisions. There is no requirement for applicants to have any experience of practise of the law of England and Wales – unlike those qualifying using the normal domestic route. This may place some lawyers in a vulnerable position when they start to practise here. One manifestation of this could be that, for reasons which are unclear, transferees are more likely to become the subject of disciplinary sanctions than domestic qualifiers. Another cause for concern is that the list of countries covered by the transfer regulations tends to reflect Britain’s past as a colonial power.



Consequently, the SRA is thoroughly reviewing the transfer requirements for qualified lawyers. In the short term, we are consulting on interim arrangements aimed at improving transferees’ readiness to practise effectively in England and Wales.



The SRA is proposing to issue fresh guidance on the type of experience that non-EU lawyers should have before they can qualify here, and the circumstances when they should be exempted from the transfer examinations. We also propose temporarily to limit the number of organisations that can set and mark the transfer test, and the number of places where the test can be undertaken. This is prompted by allegations that some providers are more generous in their marking than others.



A few critics have suggested that the SRA’s review of the transfer arrangements is motivated by a desire to make things tougher for certain people from overseas. I must stress that, provided they meet the necessary standards, we have no interest in preventing any lawyers from abroad from practising in England and Wales – on the contrary, we welcome them.



We have launched a consultation on the interim measures, which will close on 14 April. The consultation sets out the factual background. Because significant numbers of solicitors qualify by means of the transfer regulations, I hope that as many solicitors as possible – both ‘traditional’ entrants and transferees – will go to www.sra.org.uk and tell us what they think.



And what then? The overall, root-and-branch review of how lawyers who qualified in other jurisdictions (not just the limited range of countries covered by the present transfer scheme), or as barristers in England and Wales, qualify as solicitors will progress as quickly as possible, but implementation before 2010 is unlikely because of the complexity of the subject.



Several key principles will guide the review. These will include the need to protect the interests of consumers and healthy competition in the legal market. We will want to encourage a strong, diverse and effective legal profession, with entrants coming from a wide range of backgrounds and experience. Those entering the profession must meet appropriate standards of character, intellect, knowledge and skills.



One of the questions to be explored by the review will be why less than half of the people who transferred in the decade starting in 1995 still hold a practising certificate. Many appear never to have taken out a certificate to practise in England and Wales. We have hardly any idea why this is so.



All interested parties will be invited to take part in a major consultation, planned to start in September. I expect to return to this important subject in a later column.



That leads me to the subject of consultations. SRA staff spend a lot of time preparing them and considering the responses. Your views and advice are vitally important to us. If the SRA is genuinely to work in partnership with the profession, we must know your views. We are keen to hear any constructive suggestions about how we might improve our awareness of what solicitors are thinking. We are listening.



Peter Williamson is chairman of the board of the Solicitors Regulation Authority