Report comment

Anonymous31 July 2014 04:34 pm:

To offer a different perspective, I write this as a final seat Trainee who has previously obtained three years of paralegalling experience. During that time, I conducted some low-level, repetitive work. I also had the pleasure of working closely with a 19 year PQE Associate. I had the opportunity to attend fascinating hearings (albeit to take notes) The wider context of every task I undertook was explained to me and the more complex cases, dealt with at a higher level, were discussed with me. My questions were answered. I learnt how to write well. I learnt how to pitch my behaviour towards different types of clients. I learnt the importance of presentation, commerciality, punctuality, and accuracy. I developed. The LPC does not teach these things and nor does a Training Contract interview.

By contrast, I understand that many trainees are unfortunate in that they do not have committed supervision and are frequently tasked with work which does not develop their technical or commercial knowledge in any way. At times, the ill-regulated Training Contract can leave individuals woefully ill-equipped for independent practice.

I therefore do not agree that the experience gained during a Training Contract is necessarily superior to that gained as a paralegal. That may have been the case in your specific circumstances, but I consider that it is "DANGEROUS" to generalise.

I have seen peers who I consider to be consummately capable consistently fail the 'numbers game' that is obtaining a Training Contract. I have also seen patently inadequate candidates who have managed to acquire one.

In my personal opinion, it is right that the profession should be meritocratic. The current system relies somewhat on prejudice, rudimentary sifting processes and luck. As you have identified, it is not failproof.

I agree that the profession should remain controlled but I would hope that high standards are expected from each and every member of the profession, Trainee or otherwise.

I do not agree with your suggestion to run a referendum merely amongst qualified Solicitors, as I expect the result would be somewhat biased.

I accept the well-reasoned arguments set out by other commentators in respect of the fact that checks and balances need to be in place and the SRA, in its current form, is unlikely to be capable of administering them. However, this is a query about the process, not the proposal.

It is incumbent on Firms, and not the regulator of the profession, to recruit responsibly. I personally take pride in the fact that I am happy to compete in a fair market, where the skills and experience of colleagues who have qualified by whatever route are recognised. In fact, I would prefer it. This approach would likely assist in flushing out some of the less capable individuals who are lowering the standard of the profession.

Correctly implemented, I would welcome this change.