Jonathan Rayner looks at plans to end the formal training contract and assesses the impact of bespoke LPCs
Those who can remember their early days at university will recall the question that opened most conversations: ‘Which A-levels did you do?’ In future, it could be that one of the first questions solicitors could ask on meeting each other is: ‘How did you qualify?’
This is because the days when every solicitor went through law school and the two-year training contract may well be numbered, under radical proposals to revolutionise the route to qualification (see (2006) Gazette, 17 August, 1).
Having dealt with the educational aspect of training, the Law Society Regulation Board is now consulting on reforms to work-based training. It proposes the end of the formal 24-month training contract, substituting in its place a scheme based around four assessments, each at least four months apart, that could see trainees qualifying in just 16 months.
Equally controversially, it also proposes that individuals should be given the opportunity to qualify without entering into a formal training contract or working for an organisation that is accredited to give training; instead, such trainees would have an appointed supervisor from outside the firm or organisation.
This is an initial consultation, and a full, three-month consultation will follow later in the year. The board intends to pilot a framework in September 2007 with a small number of participants. The pilot will run for two years, and a full evaluation will be undertaken before any framework is fully implemented.
The board puts forward strong arguments for modernisation, with the increasing diversity of backgrounds among aspiring solicitors chief among them. The old strait-jacket to qualification is not suitable for all; the time-based approach to the training contract ‘does not recognise the variety of different ways in which individuals now study, learn and work, and provides little flexibility’, it says.
Under the present regime, there is a shortfall between the number of legal practice course (LPC) graduates and the number of training contracts available to them, and though a certain mismatch is needed to ensure firms have a choice of trainees, the gap is widening by the year. In the interests of diversity and equality of access to the profession, the board also argues, costs need to be reduced and more account must be taken of people’s pre-training work experience and current circumstances.
There is also, it argues, the overdue requirement to establish a formal, standardised way of assessing a trainee’s performance in practice. Some firms are rumoured to sign off all trainees, so long as they survive their two years.
The proposals come out of the training framework review, which called for the emphasis to be put on the skills, knowledge and experience a would-be solicitor has at the point of qualification rather than the route by which they gained them. A list of ‘day-one outcomes’ has been prepared against which trainees will be tested, and they will be required to keep a portfolio of their work during their training which will form part of the assessment.
‘We expect there still to be a gold standard achieved by firms who want to be fully accredited training establishments and train their own trainees,’ says Regulation Board chairman Peter Williamson. ‘But this will allow trainees in other environments, who have the experience and competence, to gain their portfolios and qualify.
‘Our figures indicate that there are thousands of people who have passed the LPC but have not been able to secure a training contract. It is a recognised bottleneck. Our role as regulator is to make sure that the standards of entry to the profession remain high, but access to the profession is fair. The public has to have confidence that the badge of solicitor equates to high standards of service.’
The profession is divided over whether the proposals genuinely are going to bring the benefits that the board envisages. Graham Bond, a partner at Exeter firm Tozers and chairman of the education & training committee at Devon & Exeter Law Society, is of the ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ school. ‘Before we change the system, we must be convinced that there’ll be no dilution of quality,’ he says.
He adds that where provincial firms are concerned, practitioners are often still expected to be all-rounders – so it is important that trainees continue to receive the widest possible experience of the law before qualifying.
Katharine Mellor, a partner at north-west firm Ricksons, has been involved in training issues since she qualified 31 years ago. She says that although supply and demand for training contracts is unequal, she is unsure that ‘there actually exists a requirement for 10,000 more solicitors’.
Ms Mellor has doubts over the practicalities of the proposals. ‘Who are the external supervisors going to be? Are firms going to allow them to see confidential client papers – and will clients agree? And can they realistically have the skill set to supervise a trainee over four or more different practice areas?’
She adds that, in her experience, trainees needed constant support, which a four-monthly review with a supervisor could not provide.
Lesley Williams, national training principal at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), takes a contrary view. She says she is in favour of all measures that widen access to the profession and increase the pool of available talent. She maintains that the present system of training contracts contains flaws and needs a rethink.
She says: ‘Trainees often don’t get the best deal from their contracts. They need to be closely supervised and mentored, yet many smaller firms, in particular, lack the resources or the will to do so. If the new system proposed by the Law Society ensures a rigorous assessment and checking process, with properly trained and accredited supervisors, then it has to be good for the trainee and good for the profession as a whole.’
Ms Williams says the new work-based learning programme would open the door to qualification for the hundreds of paralegals who, having failed to find a training contract after the LPC, are working for law firms. ‘They are often doing the same work as trainees, but without the prospect of eventually qualifying as solicitors and entering the profession. If the firms aren’t able to put the time into training, then the new external supervisor system is the perfect answer for them.’
Ms Williams attacks the assertion made in some quarters that the system would introduce a two-tiered profession, with training contract-qualified solicitors on one tier and the rest on the other, lower tier. ‘If you’ve qualified as a solicitor and been admitted to the roll, who’s to know how you got there?’
Philip Plowden, professor of law at Northumbria University, regards the proposals as ‘an unalloyed good idea’. He looks at it from a legal point of view: ‘In terms of domestic law, there are tensions between the time-served aspect of the current training contract and contemporary employment law. The two-year framework, it could be argued, engenders exclusivity or even discrimination. What happens if trainees with disabilities, or ones taking maternity leave, or ones with a young family working part-time, haven’t completed every part of the contract after two years? Do they fail?’
Prof Plowden also refers to the European Court of Justice decision in Morganbesser v Consiglio Dell’Ordine Degli Avvocati di Genova (C313/01), which enshrined in law that a person’s previous legal studies and experience should be taken into account when he moves from one EU state to another and seeks to qualify there. He says: ‘It’s EU law, but it doesn’t apply internally within England and Wales. The present training regime should change to give our internal trainees the same benefits.’
Prof Plowden notes that all professions are currently under government scrutiny concerning accessibility. He adds on a practical note: ‘If your firm is an accredited training contract provider, then your trainees are already keeping a portfolio. So what’s the difference with the new system?’
Tony King, head of HR development at magic circle firm Clifford Chance, is worried that the new rules would mean graduates could qualify in just 22 months. This could happen if, as has been mooted in a separate consultation paper, a graduate takes just the core part of the LPC in six months, and then completes the alternative to the training contract in 16 months. He says this would lead to an ‘inevitable’ decline in standards. Mr King says he also wants to see a clearer understanding of how much it is going to cost to train.
Solicitor Diane Price, director of human resources at Martineau Johnson in Birmingham, shares Mr King’s concerns over the shorter training period. She says: ‘It’s hard to see the benefit of reducing the training contract from 24 to 16 months. Clients don’t come in neat packages and the more legal areas that trainees are conversant with, the more additional issues they are likely to spot. Although the Law Society tells us to cover a minimum of three legal areas for the training contract, we do at least four, sometimes five or six. It all takes time and certainly longer than 16 months.’
The proposal is aimed at increasing the flexibility on offer to firms, but the board is aware of the risk of abuse, and asks in the consultation whether firms will simply design their training to ensure their trainees qualify in the shortest possible time.
Ms Price recognises that not all firms are conscientious when administering a training contract. ‘Some firms simply throw work at their trainees and leave them to get on with it. It’s an abrogation of responsibility, but at least the accredited external supervisors would be able to compensate for this and put pressure on the offending firms to shape up.’
The jury is still out on the proposed changes, but then there would be no value in a consultation if the profession’s views were already unanimously decided. Nobody is in favour of change for change’s sake, that much is clear. Change is acceptable, however, if it brings demonstrable benefits to trainees and the greater profession as a whole.
Tozer’s Mr Graham reflects the common view when he says: ‘If the new system improves accessibility, then that’s good – but only if the training remains stringent and rigorous.’
No comments yet