Report comment

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose... I am old enough to remember when the Law Society [sic] abolished qualifying as a solicitor the "long way" - by serving articles (not yet a training contract) for 5 years instead of 2. This was designed to allow those not fortunate, or rich enough to be able to go to university, to qualify as a solicitor without any degree, as it was recognised that there are some morons who get degrees and some very able people who do not.

I well remember the outcry at the temerity of the Law Society to abolish this route to qualifying (I was one of those who thought it the wrong thing to do - some of the most competent lawyers I have ever met qualified that way). Now someone has again realised that having a degree really is not the be all and end all that it tends to be cracked up to be and is trying to innovate ... by doing away with the need to have a degree in order to become a solicitor!

The principle is so obviously right it hardly needs to be argued. Equally, and much more importantly, the education and training to lead to becoming a solicitor need to be appropriate. That has zero to do with having, or not having, a degree.