LPC graduates face a pretty tough time getting training contracts at the moment. Not only is there an ever-increasing number of students graduating from the course – with training providers only too happy to offer more places – but the number of firms prepared to offer the training contract is dwindling.Things may have got worse as a result of the current economic woes, but aspiring lawyers have been struggling to break into the profession for some time. I recall writing a feature back in 2005 about how paralegals were being expected to perform fee-earning work for very low pay on the basis that they would ‘one day’ be offered a training contract, which all too often never materialised.

Because they have not yet clasped their palms around that training contract holy grail, paralegals do not enjoy the protection of its guaranteed minimum salary. More than that, the minimum salary actually damages their chances of ever winning a training contract, because it makes it too expensive for firms to offer.

Many firms are not being deliberately exploitative when they take on LPC students as paralegals. They would like to offer them a route to qualification, but they worry, often justifiably, that they can’t afford it. If they could take on their best paralegal staff as trainees, without having to up their salary (although of course the minimum salary level of £16,650 outside London or £18,590 in the capital, for someone who has already invested so much time and cash in their degree and LPC course, is not exactly big bucks) then I think that many firms would gladly offer this opportunity to their staff. True, a training contract will still involve a bigger regulatory burden than just employing someone as a paralegal, but surely the main barrier for firms is the financial obligation to pay a set wage.

Groups such as the Junior Lawyers Division are against scrapping the minimum salary level. They are concerned that without it, trainees will be paid a pittance, and as well as being unfair, that could be detrimental to diversity in the profession, with only the better off able to afford to qualify. That is a fair point.

There’s little doubt that if the Solicitors Regulation Authority does choose to stop laying down a minimum salary, many trainees will indeed find themselves facing a pay cut, and that could be seen as exploitation. But the fact is that many LPC graduates out there working as paralegals are already being exploited, and the only salary protection they have is the government’s minimum wage. Some LPC graduates are so desperate to secure a training contract that they are even prepared to conduct ‘work experience’ for free.

After all, what is the justification for the SRA to interfere with firms’ freedom to decide what they should pay their staff? This doesn’t happen in most other walks of life. The only reason I can see is that the regulator is attempting to protect trainees, and the financial investment they have made in their education and training so far. But in doing so, it is making matters worse for the many talented individuals who have still to get their first foothold into the profession. The time has come to let the market, not the regulator, decide what trainees should be paid – and in doing so, open the door to many more aspiring lawyers.