Boxing clever

If you want to win in legal practice, train.

Michael Gerrard looks at how the first year of the new CPD requirements has worked

Most solicitors would agree that keeping up to date with their chosen field is sensible, and now they are required to spend at least 16 hours a year achieving this.

Continuing professional development (CPD) is a far from recent phenomenon - it has been a requirement for the whole solicitors' profession for the past four years, and a reality for newly-qualifieds for the best part of two decades.

Until last autumn practitioners undertook 48 hours over three years; the new rules were introduced to stop practitioners packing everything into a few weeks at the end of that timetable.

But some still find that old habits die hard.

Richard Miller, chairman of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, notes: 'We still find at the end of the CPD year, that some people call up looking to get on any course just to get the required hours.'

But these are the exceptions.

Law Society CPD manager Maxine Warr appears generally happy that a year on, the 16-hour rule has not proved to be troublesome but admits there are improvements to be had.

She says: 'Our main problem is there is a lack of understanding about what activities count towards CPD.

Some practitioners think it merely means getting yourself into lectures and seminars, even though they only have to attend four hours of these a year and the rest can be achieved through other activities.'

It is unsurprising that confusion exists in certain quarters, when one realises that despite CPD having been around for 20 years, the Law Society has never previously set down a recognised definition.

This gap is set soon to be filled by Chancery Lane's training committee, aided in no small part by the creation of the post of CPD chief assessor.

He will be charged with examining the quality of courses on offer and developing a uniform standard.

The chief assessor, Neil Holdsworth, has been in post for just three months, but has a wealth of experience in this field following his role as training principal for the Crown Prosecution Service.

He already has the basis of a definition in mind: 'It is about developing the profession for the benefit of the public, the overall profession and of course the individual practitioners themselves.'

The assessor recognises how big the task before him is in establishing recognised quality standards in a field that already consists of 1,000 external and 2,000 in-house CPD course providers.

He notes: 'The number of people we monitor at the moment is relatively low, including only 10% of external providers.

What we want to achieve is a clear view of what quality is, and to some extent we don't have that clarity at the moment.'

In an attempt to gain clarity, not only will an official CPD definition be produced, but closer monitoring of courses will be attempted.

And not just through visits but via the questioning of those who have used them.

Mr Holdsworth recognises the breadth of courses available, which include everything from on-line modules to large seminars and that the requirements and capabilities of a large firm with big resources, will differ greatly from those of the small operator.

This factor has been taken on-board by course providers themselves who tailor their output to the needs of firms that differ greatly in size.

It is possible to spend thousands of pounds on a course lasting a single day; equally, it is possible to find courses priced at the 100 mark.

One training sector, which has grown greatly during the past few years, is on-line provision, with such providers maintaining that they can give a service able to suit both wallet and time.

Anthony Davy, director of legal training company 2Ends, has been providing on-line CPD provision for more than two years, and for him there are distinct advantages to be had over the more traditional provider.

He says: 'On-line definitely has the upper hand when it comes to cost, convenience and control, and you don't have to break into the charge-able day as it is easy to do half-hour modules in the evening.'

To those who argue that an on-line module prevents solicitors from either asking questions of a lecturer or engaging in discussion with other participants, Mr Davy points out that currently there are on-line forums to allow for this, although people have been slow to utilise them.

All in all he reckons that on-line provision will evolve as a useful partner alongside traditional CPD training methods, with a 'blended' approach becoming the norm.

This is a vision shared by many in the training industry, who see merits to be had in both approaches.

Suzanne Fine - who is director of legal training at City firm Lovells, and a visiting professor at Nottingham Law School - agrees that flexibility is the key to CPD's success.

She says: 'You do not need the resources of a multinational firm to comply with the requirements.

Larger firms like ourselves design in-house-training, specially tailored to our requirements, but equally it is possible to buy CPD courses off the shelf.'

Lovells' training capabilities are at the top end of the market; the firm's new offices on Holborn Viaduct boost a training suite complete with a 130-seater auditorium.

Many course providers note that a firm's ability to offer decent facilities counts heavily with new lawyers.

Sarah Hutchinson, the College of Law's professional development manager, argues: 'By and large people take training seriously, indeed the most common question young lawyers ask prospective employers is what training they offer'.

She adds that such concerns go way beyond gaining the bare requirements to squeak through CPD requirements, with many firms seeing decent provision as vital to the development of their lawyers, especially in their early years.

Even away from the world of large firms and big training budgets, small operators can see the benefits that compulsion in the form of CPD brings, however painful in terms of cost and time.

Daniel Rosen, a commercial litigator and sole practitioner, has been in business for six months.

He can spare only one day away from the files to fulfil CPD requirements.

'It is one of those things that is a necessary evil in respect of time,' he says.

'But in terms of relevance it is important as you need to be up with what is going on in your field.'

For this reason he has to take courses strictly relevant to his field, and maintains that this makes him possibly more choosy than someone in a larger firm.

While seeing the time and cost benefits to be had from using on-line and video based courses, for him these cannot replace the benefits of being in with a group of other practitioners.

Says Mr Rosen: 'You can't ask questions of a video or a computer screen, and anyway if you are in a room with other solicitors it is most instructive.

If you are in with representatives from the big boys you get to hear what they are doing and how they go about their work, it is also a wonderful opportunity to network.'

It is clear from all this that CPD has something to offer solicitors, whatever their size, although requirements may change over time.

The Legal Education and Training Group recently asked the Law Society to do a review on the basis that the 16-hour requirement might not be sufficient to cater for all the skills a modern practitioner requires.

Michael Gerrard is a freelance journalist