The forgotten apprentices
‘Earn and Learn’ (Gazette, 9 October) rightly celebrates what the apprenticeship route has achieved in its first decade – and it is worth celebrating. Apprenticeships have opened the profession to many people from less privileged socioeconomic backgrounds who would otherwise have faced barriers that would have shut them out. It is also notable that apprentices are passing the Solicitors Qualifying Examination at a higher rate than their peers. That is a credit to the apprentices themselves and to the employers who invest in them.
What the article does not mention is a quieter group: apprentices working in law centres, law clinics, legal aid practices and pro bono advice centres, who are trying to qualify while doing some of the most demanding work in the profession.
For an apprentice in a commercial or high street firm, the day job and the SQE reinforce each other. Someone who spends the day on conveyancing and revises property practice for the FLK2 multiple-choice exam in the evening is learning the same material twice, and each strengthens the other. SQE1 maps closely onto that kind of work.
The same is not true for the apprentice at a law centre. They spend their days on a discrimination claim, a tenancy dispute or a benefits review, but it does not convert into SQE preparation in the same way. They study many subjects that are, without question, a strong legal foundation, then return to a caseload that sits largely outside the syllabus. They are learning twice over, with little overlap to help them. These apprentices are still working, studying and passing, but their path is more difficult.
I fear the consequence will be a pipeline of social welfare lawyers that dries up just when we need it most. Legal aid deserts already cover large parts of the country, and the people best placed to fill them are those with roots in the communities that are going without advice.
I urge those designing and funding the apprenticeship and SQE route, and those assessing its success, to consider how these apprentices are funded and supported, and to ask whether the current model works for the kind of lawyers the country most needs.
Noella Gooden
Workforce programmes and EDI lead, solicitor (non-practising), Law Centres Network, London W1
Conveyancers bearing a heavy burden
Much discussion about residential conveyancing centres on transaction volumes, completion times and regulatory change. Less attention is paid to whether the profession has the people to deliver the work.
The numbers should concern us. The UK Residential Conveyancing Market 2025 report found that conveyancers in England and Wales fell from just over 13,000 in September 2021 to around 11,140 by January 2025, a drop of roughly 15% in under four years. Meanwhile, transaction volumes are recovering. Fewer practitioners are being asked to handle more work.
That work has also changed. Alongside the transactions themselves, teams are absorbing growing anti-money laundering obligations, new property forms, and a steady stream of legislative and regulatory change.
When reviewing conversations with conveyancing candidates, the effect is clear. Experienced fee-earners carry heavy caseloads with little or no administrative or paralegal support, and spend more of their day on admin and compliance than on legal work.
Salary still matters, but when they consider a move, the support around them, realistic caseloads and flexibility now carry as much weight.
Some firms are responding well. They are reviewing caseloads, investing in technology to take repetitive tasks off fee-earners’ desks, and offering genuine remote or hybrid working to recruit beyond their local area.
Asking teams to work harder will not close the capacity gap. Firms that treat capacity as a strategic issue and support fee-earners to focus on the legal work they trained for will find it easier to keep the people they have and attract the ones they need.
Erin Vaudin
Marketing and communications specialist, Douglas Scott Legal Recruitment, London W1
Illegitimate concerns
On a recent trip back from my Yorkshire homeland, I learnt a new song. Although I was surrounded by many noisy fans who got off at Stevenage, the identity of the remaining shaven-headed choir escaped me. I can’t say what its title was for fear of defamation actions from some posh London litigator. Instead, I will give a DIY version:
‘[Insert first name] [Insert surname] is illegitimate. He ain’t got no birth certificate…’
As a family law solicitor, I felt the need to correct the drunken youths. ‘Desist!’ I might have cried. Instead, dear editor, I resolved to write to the Gazette to explain why the ditty, which may or may not be historically accurate, is well out of date for today. I wanted to put the lads right.
In its report No. 118 on illegitimacy, published in 1982, the Law Commission made several recommendations aimed at removing the legal disadvantages suffered by illegitimate children.
Although its recommendations were enacted by the Family Law Act 1987, the act left the concept of legitimacy untouched. However, to implement the strategy of reducing the need to refer to the concept, where it was still necessary to distinguish between children born within marriage and those born without, the act introduced the crucial change that reference be made to the parents and whether or not they are married to each other, rather than to the children.
In fairness to the football choristers, the resulting law can be somewhat confusing. It is debatable whether the law had to be so complex. Authors defer to the clear spirit of the 1987 act, and tend to avoid labelling children, instead referring to mothers and fathers as unmarried.
As someone whose repertoire previously extended to the likes of ‘Leeds, Leeds, Leeds, (Marching on Together)’, I am always keen to broaden my horizons. However, dear football choristers, please keep it clean and swear-word-free.
Tony Roe
Family law solicitor and arbitrator Dexter Montague LLP, Reading
No comments yet