Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

As ever, people with vested interests or a lack of imagination defend the status quo. Yet they have said nothing as standards have plunged over the last 20 years. One does not even have to be fully literate now to qualify. I could show you the websites of some firms, littered with spelling and grammatical errors. We all come across woefully stupid and ignorant solicitors. They all have degrees but that means next to nothing.

Of course there is a need for a rigorous central exam.

But we should go further. Call me a wild radical, but I think it is wrong that solicitors are allowed to practise areas of law in which they have had no training, and in which their competence has never been assessed.

For example one need not study family law or probate as part of one's training. Yet these are reserved areas of work, where solicitors have a monopoly. One can set up a firm doing just such work, despite nobody in the firm ever having had any relevant training, nor having had their competence assessed. You do not even have to warn clients that you are winging it.

Would we accept a system in which doctors could practise any specialisation of their choice, untrained? If not, why is it OK for solicitors?

Until there is a system for ensuring all practitioners have been assessed and judged competent in whatever area they hold themselves out as practising it is hard to see our glorious profession as anything other than a restrictive practice, designed simply to keep out competition lull the public into an unjustified sense of confidence.

Your details

Cancel