of a surprise that the “ usual route ” to qualification hasn ’ t fundamentally changed for around 24 years . That is a long time in educational terms . The thinking about how people learn , how people are assessed , and how they can match the skills learnt on a training course to the skills needed in practice , has moved on significantly since 1993 , but the old system has not kept up with the changed thinking . Therefore , most prospective Solicitors still feel the best way for them to gain access to the profession is via a law degree , followed by the 1 year Legal Practice Course ( LPC ), followed by 2 years working in a privately owned law firm as a Trainee .
The difficulty is that many people start out on that road without any clear prospect of a job at the end of it , and it is an expensive process . On top of the £ 9,000 per year tuition fees at University for the law degree , the prospective Solicitor must also pay between £ 12,000 and £ 15,000 for the LPC , and during the training contract , if the prospect is lucky enough to obtain one , the salary is relatively low , ( except in the larger London firms ). There is therefore little doubt that the inflexibility of that process creates barriers to less advantaged people , who simply cannot afford the risk of additional outlay with no guarantee of work at the end of it .
There have been a number of other routes to qualification developed over the last 24 years which have assisted with this issue , but the difficulty this creates is ensuring everyone qualifies to the same standards . In fact that issue , inconsistency , is also a problem even within the usual routes to qualification , because every training institution offering the LPC also assesses its own students to determine whether they have met the standards it has set . It is not hard to see that each institution may have different standards and different ways of testing against those standards , and how this will not only affect likely outcomes for the students , but also their future employability , if they happen to have chosen a training course not held in high esteem .
Compounding that issue , at the end of the Training Contract , there is no effective monitoring for consistency between employers , the net effect of which is that very few trainees fail their Training Contract , even though there are many occasions when they are not kept on at a firm after qualification .
You might therefore think the case for change is obvious . The Solicitors Regulation Authority ( SRA ) certainly think so , and have proposed a more flexible approach to ways of qualifying , thus opening up possibilities of concurrent periods of education training and work experience , but with a proviso that all prospects must pass the same centralised examination , run by an assessment body without any vested interest in providing training courses , and that the centralised examination must test both knowledge and skills e . g legal knowledge plus interviewing and advocacy skills .
Whilst the SRA idea is gradually becoming more accepted , it has met with widespread opposition from parts of the profession and large numbers of the academic institutions . It could be argued that the latter have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo , as they will be concerned about the financial impact on them of more flexible training pathways , but the profession ’ s reticence is more difficult to understand . It may simply be that change is sometimes hard to embrace .
At Mayo Wynne Baxter , we welcome any initiative that attempts to widen access to legal qualification and practice , and are keen to explore the new suggested pathways , such as legal apprenticeships , part time study , degrees with built in practical work experience , and other similar initiatives . Such initiatives , coupled with the centralised examination that should ensure consistently high standards , can only lead to a more diverse and well informed profession , of which we are proud to be a part .
By Chris Randall
5