Report comment

Do please read on. This is not a relatively old man's nostalgia.

In the days when (1960) to start your career depended on whether your dad knew your prospective principal - unless he was your dad or your uncle. And if you had enough O levels.

You were articled and you were entitled as a result to sit the qualifying examinations and qualify. You learnt on the job and did the intellectual bit at Lancaster Gate etc. Not many - certainly a majority - had degrees.

This meant that the profession regulated its population. Which was, give or take, 23000.

This was thought to be a bad idea. Not enough intellectual rigour and so a degree based entrance was introduced. Also (rightly) the grotesque gender imbalance was addressed. Half my articled clerks (pre 1986) were women.

The pinch point of articles as a prerequisite to qualifying was done away with. The LS monopoly of training and examination was done away with. As I understand it, the trainers (with I assume an unofficial league table) now set and mark their own exams.

This leaves a troop of aspirants ( with enormous debts) seeking "articles" in a, possibly overcrowded, profession of 130000(?) solicitors with enormous economic pressures of their own outside the gilded "elite".

The new regime has turned into 1960. Admission is for the few; except that all have incurred its cost. The financially vulnerable are squeezed out.

Why am I wrong in thinking that "articles" should not be a precondition to preparing for the - and I would prefer a common - qualifying examination? And why should there not be an "apprenticeship" scheme for those whom it would suit? They are not stupid - and without sounding boastful I was one.