Training for the future

Margaret Bailey sounds a note of caution amid the clamour to dismantle the current training structure and outlines why it should be preserved

Prompted by widespread concern regarding the status of legal education and training, the Law Society recently embarked on an ambitious review of the cradle-to-grave training of solicitors, from the training contract through to partnership.

This process - known as the training framework review - is currently focusing on the training contract stage.

The Trainee Solicitors Group actively supports this review and the group's chairwoman sits on the Society's training committee, which discusses all issues relating to the training contract, including issues such as the minimum salary.

Recently, prominent figures in the field of legal education have suggested the abolition of the training contract in its present form (see [2002] Gazette, 2 May, 4), fuelled by concerns over the future of the delivery of legal services.

This is radical thinking.

However, it does not appear to be recognised by the proponents of a major shift in legal education that the training contract is not based on old values, but provides a safeguard for the protection of consumers.

The training contract is the only stage of legal training where a trainee gains the practical knowledge and skills needed to meet the demands of the modern law firm.

This can be achieved through practical measures such as a structured training timetable, regular appraisals and a broad-based training, or regular seat changes in medium to large-sized firms.

These are the minimum requirements laid down by the Society in any event.

Through the implementation of these, the firms achieve the best possible training for trainees and will be rewarded for their investment of time and effort through a well-trained newly qualified solicitor.

What of the suggestion that students be regarded as solicitors, albeit non-practising, on completion of the legal practice course (LPC)? The training contract actively encourages good practice and risk management and is misunderstood by those advocates for its abolition.

The resultant effect on professional indemnity through the possible increase in negligence claims against prospective 'non-practising' solicitors has been overlooked by the proponents of radical change.

No substantial arguments have been put forward as to why such a transformation would benefit the profession, other than obscure references to the needs of a global economy.

However, any changes to the structure of legal training must be considered carefully and must not simply be implemented for the benefit of the law schools.

Few articles in the press express positive opinions of the legal profession.

A solicitor should be skilled in social interaction, negotiation, advocacy and be a good team player.

It is well documented that the abolition of the maintenance grant and the introduction of tuition fees, as well as the ever-increasing cost of LPC fees, all prevent those from less privileged backgrounds from entering the profession.

Diversity within the profession is needed to ensure that the more skilled students are given a fair chance at advancing or even starting a career in the law.

Many students still experience difficulties in finding a training contract.

However, once they have accomplished the difficult feat of finding and beginning their contract, most of them ultimately take an extremely positive view of their training.

According to the Hays/Trainee Solicitors Group lifestyle survey, which was conducted in 2001, 66% of trainees responded that the training they received gave them a strong basis for qualification.

Any future changes ought to be fully considered and a long-term strategy for the ongoing training of solicitors developed.

This is in the best interests of all in the profession from students to equity partners.

See Feature

Margaret Bailey is the Law Society Council member for the Trainee Solicitors Group and an assistant solicitor at Berrymans Lace Mawer in Liverpool