Report comment

The issue the abolition was supposed to address was the lack of training contracts, so by removing the minimum salary it would open more firms up to offer training contracts.

The problem that was not looked at was whether the firms that were not providing training contracts would offer then without the minimum salary and the effect of the economy and other factors. Between declines in business, government meddling affecting firms (particularly in PI and criminal) and rising PII costs, a lot of firms are trying to stay afloat and not thinking of trying to fit in time to train someone up.

As a qualified solicitor I do not get a protected minimum salary so there is no reason for a trainee to get one. If you choose to go to university and self-fund the LPC and put yourself into debt then that is a personal choice and if the trainee does not want to be in that situation then they can choose not to be but forcing firms to increase wages is not the solution.

As an aside, my secretary is a legal executive in training. She has been taking evening classes to qualify whilst working full time so when she finishes she will come out as a legal executive and with years of experience which is lacking in a lot of trainees fresh from university at 21/22. From a legal executive you can then take the LPC if you wish to qualify as a solicitor and are in much better stead then someone with no practical experience.