Report comment

It is not surprising that those who make their living from the status quo are reluctant to change. The way in which universities approach the teaching of law is in need of a fundamental review. I once reviewed the company law material at one university and am not sure if the students who took that module would have left with any useful understanding of practical company law.

I have headed the company law course at a Russell Group university, have taught for many years on the CPE (now GDL), LPC, PSC, and QLTT (now QLTS). I have taught at universities and colleges. I have some 25 years of experience in designing and delivering CPD. And, to top it all, I am now a practising solicitor and am dealing with other solicitors on transactions.

In my opinion, and from my experience (which might be different from, and possibly wider than, the chair of the ALT), the current system (which current lawyers will not unsurprisingly want to defend) does not work so as to ensure that all solicitors have the level of competence that should be expected. I have come across huge and shocking gaps in knowledge among lawyers when practising.

I am not convinced that the legal education at university or from the LPC provides entrants to the profession with an adequate level of knowledge and competence. I get to work with these lawyers at this stage of their careers.

And with the attitude of many solicitors to CPD, there is no great hope of that level of knowledge being maintained throughout their careers.

The old CPD points-based system of CPD was clearly being treated by some solicitors as something of a joke or, at best, a tick-box exercise. I can recall lawyers attending some of my training sessions even though they had no interest whatsoever in the topic but needed the points. And some organisations hired very large halls and packed them in for the requisite time. (Though I am not convinced that the new competency-based approach will not be treated in the same way).

The purpose of the SQE is to ensure that all entrants to the profession have reached a required level knowledge. What can be objectionable to that? And anyone who has worked in teaching establishments must surely accept that this test must be externally marked to avoid the position that we now see with grade inflation at universities and the virtually certainty of passing the LPC.

The SRA is striving to fix a problem that exists, though it seems that there are many who are denying that there is any problem at all.

The new routes to the profession coupled with an exam that requires lawyers to show a set level of knowledge is likely to lead to an appreciation in the value of continuing professional development. And many of the larger firms have embraced CPD and take training very seriously. They will now have to develop their firm-specific training to fill in any gaps in students not taking the LPC. Other firms are likely to take training more seriously than they do now by arranging meaningful training for their lawyers.