In a new monthly column on regulation issues, Peter Williamson describes plans for outcomes-based training both pre and post qualification

Of all the responsibilities that fall to the new Law Society Regulation Board, our duty to raise standards for future generations of solicitors is one of the most important. Solicitors are accountable to an increasingly informed public, who expect high standards of professional behaviour and competence.


Education and training are the bedrocks of the profession. A key task of the solicitors regulation authority (SRA, as the Regulation Board will become known next year) is to ensure that solicitors join the profession with the knowledge, skills and attitudes required for a lifetime of ethical, competent practice.


So what is the new authority planning for this next generation? The overriding change is a move to towards outcomes-based training – setting out the essential skills and knowledge that solicitors must attain before they qualify. At present, although much of the legal education and training at university, law school and within the workplace is excellent, we cannot be sure that the conclusion of a training contract is a robust test of competence. That is not good enough. Our proposed changes to the training contract are designed to ensure that we can have confidence in the knowledge and skills of all new solicitors. We are suggesting that there should be two routes to qualification – routes of equal status, quality assured to the same standards, and genuinely outcomes-based.


Our first public consultation attracted a good response, for which we were most grateful. We found broad support for this twin-route approach. We foresee that most trainees will continue to go through a period of work-based learning with firms that are accredited training establishments.


However, there will be another route where those without a formal training placement would be able to register with the SRA, and plan their portfolios of work-based learning. Their work would be supervised and – crucially – assessed by assessors appointed by the authority. They would, of course, need to be working within a legal environment, working to the same standards as trainees in accredited training firms and achieving the same outcomes.


This could help the thousands of trainees who have passed their legal practice course (LPC) – often at considerable cost to themselves – but not been able to secure a training contract. Last year more than 9,000 students began an LPC but there are only about 5,700 training places available each year. It is wrong in principle that competent trainees should be unable to qualify simply because of inflexibilities in the supply of training places.


Whatever route a trainee follows, we expect a two-year period of work-based learning will normally be needed. However, achieving the required standards may be a longer process for some and shorter for those who, exceptionally, might be able to prove their competence earlier. But any additional flexibility here must not lead to lower standards, and we are listening to those who are concerned about possible pressure from trainees and firms to reduce the timespan for reasons of convenience.


The hard and detailed work is about to begin as we start our pilot projects. In co-operation with a range of firms and legal organisations, we will start to shape the portfolios of work trainees will need to prepare. We will look at the standards required if firms want to train their own trainees and at how we will validate and monitor them. These pilots will test how best to raise standards for all and provide assurance for the public about the service they can expect from their solicitor.


We are not looking at the period of work-based learning in isolation. There is a need to know about outcomes at each stage of a solicitor’s training. We are working on a new definition for the LPC. For example, studying for the electives at a later stage may prove attractive to students who want to spread their study and costs over a longer period of time. We are working with course providers on this redefinition of the course to update its standards and content, which should provide more flexibility for all.


Other big issues will follow from setting this new standard for qualifying solicitors. From here we will be able to work in a more focused way on continuing professional development (CPD). The present system of self-declared CPD hours needs reviewing. At the moment, the emphasis is on hours spent, but surely the outcomes are more important. We are prepared to go back to first principles to see how genuine professional development can best be achieved.


Prevention is better than cure. We want to invest more effort in the competence of the profession so that we can spend less time on conduct and enforcement matters.


Being sure of the standard of our newly qualified solicitors is a good place to start. We look forward to working with professional and consumer groups, with educational institutions, and with all those with an interest in legal education, to find the best ways of achieving our goals.


Peter Williamson is chairman of the Law Society Regulation Board