Report comment

I had to study a degree (3yrs), LPC (1 yr), complete a training contract (2 yrs) and then get a year's supervised advocacy experience, take another exam and portfolio test (duty solicitor) AND then another one to end up as a solicitor with higher rights, about 7 years after qualifying. Those like me regularly face criticism from people like Gove, old school judges etc. telling us of the poor standard of advocacy we provide. and the need to continually retrain as an advocate through various reaccreditation schemes.

On the civil side of the profession it appears that soon, no experience of any kind will be needed to be a perfectly competent advocate.

Could the senior judiciary please confirm which of these contrasting views is the correct one? Perhaps a compromise might work - require people to obtain a certain level of qualification, ensure they maintain on the job training and then allow experience to continue to develop their skills all the time in the knowledge that those that do make mistakes can properly atone for errors via insurance. We could call them "solicitors" or something.