Report comment

It doesn't look a whole lot different to the structure for qualifying that I, and many others, had to do, viz a law degree, followed by a profession-wide exam called the Law Society Finals Part II, (centrally set, properly invigilated, and anonymously marked), and two years articles, which is probably, I think, "about right" as an overall structure for qualifying as a legal professional.

Somewhere along the line there is a need for some rigorous academic study along with a time of supervised practical experience in the office.

The devil is in the detail, and in this the Law Society in my opinion simply got it wrong. Not just a little bit wrong, but spectacularly wrong.

I can still remember the arrogance of some our often surprisingly poor lecturers at the College of Law who appeared to see the Law Society Finals Part II as some sort of crime and punishment issue: Three strikes and you are out ... on a set of exams that virtually nobody could pass and needed to have a large number moderated through if there was to be any solicitors' profession worth the name anymore ... to then a mere decade or so later have a set of exams that virtually nobody failed.

That everybody is now going to have to do the Law Society Finals Part I, sorry, I mean, Stage 1, is probably a sad reflection of perceived variations in standards between what should be something roughly similar across the country, viz the university degree in law. The government should take note.