Finishing school

Should the training contract be scrapped? Jacky Lewis hears mixed views on whether the current system should be changed to promote goals of client care and good practice

At what point should a trainee be considered a 'solicitor'? If the ideas of Professor Nigel Savage, chief executive of the College of Law are anything to go by, solicitors will be able to call themselves 'non-practising solicitors' straight after the legal practice course (LPC).

In a sweeping attempt to deconstruct current legal training, Prof Savage suggests that training contracts should be scrapped and the whole three-stage training structure be revised (see [2002] Gazette, 2 May, 4).

He contends that the training is outmoded; preparing students for a model of practice that is 'increasingly fictional'.

He suggests that symbols of professional status such as training contracts are 'no longer necessary', considering them elitist and 'a throwback to the Victorian age' - that the three or four-seat training contract has become an 'anachronism' in today's global world.

The Law Society is currently reviewing the legal education and training system.

The framework under consideration covers the whole training experience, from university law degrees through to the LPC and the training contract.

Andrew Holroyd, a partner with Liverpool firm Canter & Jackson and chairman of the Law Society's training committee, says he has some sympathy with Prof Savage's desire to make the solicitor qualification an international marque.

However, he is not convinced by the proposals.

He says: 'There was overwhelming support for the training contract when we last reviewed it in 1999.

It was felt that the experience in firms gives our lawyers an edge over their US and some European counterparts, whose pre-qualification training is purely adacemic.

'We must remember that solicitors' academic training in the UK - at around four years - is less than in the US and Europe; how would the qualification stand up internationally if the two years of experience were taken away?'

Verity Chase, chairwoman of the Trainee Solicitors' Group, disagrees with the suggestion that scrapping the training contract would be beneficial.

She says it would be better to look at training stage-by-stage, starting with a review of the basic law degree, to see what the Society wants it to achieve.

She says the degree itself could be made more practical.

The LPC, in its turn, should offer core modules and electives, reflecting trainees' own interests.

While Prof Savage is looking at getting rid of training contracts altogether and suggests trainees become qualified with a 'limited practising certificate' after the LPC, Ms Chase maintains that it is only after training that individuals mature.

This is when 'the book learning is put into practice' and client care is learned.

She maintains that it is post-LPC, when the supervised learning continues, that trainees learn the delicate art of dealing with colleagues, peers and most importantly, clients.

She says: 'It is ridiculous to go straight from the LPC to the market place...

during training there are continuing checks and balances, but there would be none in Prof Savage's system.

How would the Law Society monitor quality control?'

She contends that these training reforms would narrow lawyers down and encourage them into early specialisation.

Prof Savage suggests that solicitors should be called 'non-practising' at the end of their LPC.

Ms Chase views this as a rather meaningless label, as 'if you go on to practise you will get another fancy label.

This just encourages foreign students who come over and complete the LPC to say, "I'm a non-practising English solicitor"'.

But Prof Savage counters: 'Under my proposals, foreign students would be able to return to their countries with a solid qualification, and English students who became paralegals would be protected both by the Law Society and as qualified emlpoyees.'

Prof Savage argues that solicitor status could become the entry point for a business qualification; coming into the law with an MBA or other post-graduate degree sometimes better prepares lawyers for the legal workplace, the world of business and transactions.

Jamie Brown, head of graduate recruitment at City firm Taylor Joynson Garrett, wonders whether scrapping the training contract would actually work in practice.

He says that training works well for both parties, and is especially beneficial for the trainee who has the two-year period to think about whether he wants the job.

'It's a great get-out clause for the trainees.

They may have been offered their training contracts in their second year at university; they may only be 20 years old then, it will be three or four years on by the time they have to make firm decisions about their future, and they will have matured a lot,' says Mr Brown.

He adds that trainees have limited life experience, and 'sometimes the training contract just doesn't work out for them'.

Mr Brown points out: 'Looking from another perspective, it costs us in excess of 100,000 fully to train up a trainee...

you can see why we don't want people to leave; we have made a time investment and a cash investment and we want to retain people after training.

The training contract works pretty well for us, it works pretty well for City institutions and pretty well for the students themselves.'

Jane Swaden, a trainee at Manchester-based firm Halliwell Landau, can see that the training contract may well be viewed as 'elitist', but says that she found it much more useful than the LPC.

'Even in my first seven months at Halliwell Landau, I have learned more than on the LPC, which I found incredibly unfulfilling in terms of the quality of the teaching and the course content.

Law school is sometimes aimed at the lowest common denominator because of all the different abilities they have to cater for.

I think the LPC should be abolished.'

She says she would prefer to have been taught more like an accountant: 'Skip the LPC and go straight into a firm and do an integrated training, a mixture of work and exams, while getting hands-on experience.

CPE then LPC is a terribly long training for trainees like me who didn't do a law degree; I enjoy academic study, but I would rather have spent my time doing an MA in law than the LPC.'

Another reason Ms Swaden would prefer to see the LPC go than the training contract is the expense, which is now deferring potential solicitors, such as those with children, or mature entrants.

A leading legal aid practitioner, who declined to be named, echoes these arguments.

'Legal aid practices, running on a small margin, can often not afford the luxury of having a trainee at all.

These trainees are lost to welfare law - they'll never find a way through to these practices...

the requirements are there to help the trainees and it would be unfair to expose them to legal practice without the training and supervision required to ensure they are protected and not exploited.'

Paul Rose, head of practice development at Halliwell Landau, agrees that if the LPC is scrapped, young lawyers may well become specialised at 20 years old, and may stay in the same department 'for the rest of their lives'.

In his view, they would not call themselves solicitors at all, but by a more specific title, 'litigator' or 'conveyancer' for example.

'Being called a solicitor implies a certain breadth of knowledge...

15 years ago, everybody in the law had that breadth of knowledge.

But they may know everything about litigation but nothing about property.'

He does not consider it any advantage for young lawyers to 'hit a niche' right away.

There does not appear to be a consensus of approval for Prof Savage's views.

It might be that lawyers are old fashioned, dyed-in-the-wool and resistant to change, or it could just be that they are saying 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.

Good practice and client care is at the heart of this issue, the question is, which path is more likely to lead to it?

Jacky Lewis is a freelance journalist