Report comment

Obviously, not everyone who wants to be a solicitor should be allowed to be one - the necessary skills need to be proven in some way. I am not holding myself out as an oracle, and do not claim to have an idea of how one could prove themselves to an appropriate standard. That would need to be concocted by people far more intelligent than me!

However, as I commented on another article, while it is not the main point of this article I don't think that the lack of a degree should automatically bar anyone from the profession. As I said there, there are many valid reasons why someone may not wish or be able to go to university. For example, one of my friends who got straight A's in his A-Levels and could have had his pick of universities didn't go because he wasn't interested in it, and didn't want to be saddled with the huge debt when he was done. Clearly, not having a degree doesn't necessarily mean a person does not have academic prowess.

It is difficult, because I do agree with Anon 13:59 that I would not be keen on the idea of a surgeon who had did not have a degree. Having said that, I believe (I don't know for sure, so I am happy to be corrected) that relevant medical degrees are more 'practically-focussed' than law degrees, in that what you learn is far more applicable to your career. And it is worth remembering that lawyers used to undertake a form of apprenticeship before law degrees were introduced.

Aside from that, it may be that person is well-suited for the job, but for whatever reason, doesn't excel in structured academia - for example, exams may not be their strongest point. How many times can any of us honestly say we've never had access to either reference texts or more experienced colleagues in our day-to-day work? Surely it is far more important to be able to comprehend and correctly apply the law than it is to be able to remember every detail of a particular case? (This is why I'm a big fan of open-book exams, but that is a whole other topic).

One way it could be done, I suppose, would be that for a person to be accepted onto the LPC/Super-exam/whatever else, they must EITHER have a degree OR have been in relevant work (for example, as a paralegal) for so many years, and be recommended by a senior solicitor from their firm. This could be advantageous for both parties as well, as a firm may be willing to fund the potential solicitor's training, and may be able to retain talent following completion of the training.

It's undoubtedly a tough issue. But I think, if I were in charge of hiring, a person who has experienced life at a law firm, working closely with solicitors for several years, would be far more tempting than one with a first class degree and limited experience!