Mother in Law: Does it matter how we qualify?

‘I don’t like the idea of solicitors being able to qualify without a proper training contract.’ I heard an older, senior solicitor say this recently in reference to the Solicitors Qualifying Examination. I have been thinking about this a lot – particularly since I realised that the SQE is soon going to be (pretty much) the only way to qualify.

I value the varied experience I got in my training contract – the soft skills from dealing with legal aid clients, the pressure of conveyancing, being dragged off to a fancy lunch with some commercial clients. But did I really need the different seats? Because this is the issue the solicitor mentioned above has. We are going to end up with solicitors who have not had the varied experience of a traditional training contract.

In preparation for writing this, I have been thinking about the legal knowledge I gained from working in other areas that is still useful to me. I have only been able to think of one example: the difference between legal and beneficial ownership of property and how that all works at HM Land Registry. This is good, solid knowledge that is needed in various areas of law, but I suppose you do not need to know that if you work in personal injury or immigration.

Of course, we live and work in different times to 1990, when the training contract was introduced. I was in Year 4. A ‘fairytale romance’ started with a grey-haired man picking up a prostitute in a sports car. My mum stopped us eating beef in case we went mad. And, more often than not, the person who did your divorce would then sell your house for you.

We do not want lawyers to know a little bit about everything these days. We are not GPs. I met with a client recently and, towards the end of the meeting, they started talking about how they had the wrong toe amputated. Do you think I (a) expanded my retainer to advise on clinical negligence or (b) gave them the details of a colleague who specialised in this area? Our specialisms are so technical these days, and the culture of negligence/compliance does not lend itself to dabbling.

I think certain solicitors like the barriers to qualification. Maybe we all do to an extent. We worked hard and do not want any old riff-raff giving out legal advice. We want the profession to be valued and have integrity. But I am sure we are all still aware of firms that charged out legal execs at £100 per hour less than their solicitor colleagues and do not allow them to become partners. Who do they think they are?

For four years at university I memorised stuff to regurgitate in exams while drinking Lambrini. Legal execs, invariably, work full-time in a law firm while completing the (on average) four-year academic stage of training. I know who I would prefer to employ at the end of those four years. And while the CILEX and (optional) SQE courses are well-rounded, who are we to say that someone who wants to do wills and probate needs to know the ins and outs (as it were) of R v Brown?

I am particularly intrigued by the solicitor apprentices I recently came across. Six years after their A-levels they will qualify as solicitors with six years of actual relevant experience, no debt, six years’ worth of wages and intact livers. Sure, I had some life experiences working in a city centre bar below a massage parlour, but knowing the potential pitfalls of Part 36 would probably have stood me in better stead longer term.

Of course, the cost of going to university is a bigger issue now than it was when I went. I recently read How to Kill Your Family by Bella Mackie (and yes I did get some funny looks – particularly from my young daughters). When appointing a solicitor to appeal her murder conviction, the main character notes that ‘as with so many parts of British life, if you want to be listened to, taken seriously and treated with respect, [you should] employ a posh white man to speak on your behalf. Even better if he’s middle-aged’. Is that really where we still are in this country?

It is certainly where we would continue to be for decades if the financial barriers to qualification had remained. Sure, they have their place, but clients want to deal with someone relatable too, someone who knows what they are talking about (regardless of the accent they are saying it in), someone who appreciates a client is just a customer who really, really wants you to return their call. They do not care how you qualified – they just want you to care enough to do a good job when you get there.

Some facts and identities have been altered in the above article