The future of legal training in the UK was thrust into the spotlight earlier this year, after the Law Society unveiled a reform package that promises to revolutionise the current legal education system. The professional body for solicitors in England and Wales finally unveiled its plans for the shake-up when its Training Framework Review Group (TFRG) presented its key findings to council members back in February of this year.
The group, led by Chancery Lane’s head of education and training, Julie Swan, recommended ditching the requirement for trainees to qualify by completing the traditional legal practice course (LPC) in favour of a more flexible alternative.
Under the terms of the ‘outcomes-based’ model, designed to promote a flexible route to the profession, candidates would only need to pass a Law Society-approved exam before being eligible for a training contract.
The reforms would also ditch the requirement for non-law graduates to complete a conversion course. Trainees would, however, still have the option to progress the traditional way by completing an LPC after a law degree.
The Law Society is currently sifting through more than 200 formal responses to a public consultation period, which ended in July, and is set to make a final decision on whether to press ahead with the reforms by the end of the year.
But the TFRG’s radical proposals have been dogged by criticism for the impact they could have on standards, costs and flexibility throughout the profession.
The review was first prompted by the anticipated threat to the vocational LPC when eight City firms — including the entire magic circle — announced in 2001 they were to launch a bespoke City LPC for their own trainees.
Under the terms of the deal, the firms secured a tie-up with a consortium of law schools, led by Nottingham University, to help provide the course content, throwing the future of the standard LPC into doubt.
Roger Smith, Swan’s predecessor at Chancery Lane and now director of law reform and human rights group Justice, first kicked off the review in response to those plans, fearing a splinter course could spark a two-tier legal education system.
The agenda has moved on in the four years since the TFRG began its deliberations, and Clifford Chance, Allen & Overy and Linklaters signed further deals with the College of Law last year to run tailored courses.
The TFRG’s non-prescriptive approach, however, seems to play into the hands of those giant firms who have access to the significant resources and infrastructure needed to build their own courses.
Simon Firth, Linklaters’ trainee development partner, says: "We would welcome the chance to move away from the current highlyregulated format, but the jury is still out on whether a robust and cost-effective replacement can be found."
What is certain is that this Rolls-Royce approach to the lawyer-training process is only feasible for a handful of large firms which take on a large number of trainees, forcing the hand of many educational establishments and smaller firms to come up with cheaper alternatives to the existing LPC, which can cost as much as £9,000.
It is this potential for the ‘dumbing down’ of legal education that lies at the root of many of the objections fired at Chancery Lane and spurred a vocal minority of two TFRG members to issue strong objections and distance themselves from the group.
Panel members Melissa Hardee, LPC director at the Inns of Court School of Law, and Professor Phil Knott of Nottingham Law School have both publicly opposed the group’s findings and remain adamant that some form of vocational training must be a mandatory element of the training process.
"Just having academic knowledge or being bright does not automatically make you a good practitioner," Hardee says.
The proposals have also met with a mixed reaction both in the City and with senior figures within the education system, and the Law Society has come under consistent fire for its perceived failure to consult the profession earlier about its plans for change.
After the most recent consultation ended in July, College of Law chief executive Nigel Savage told Legal Week: "What would be interesting is to ask the [Law Society] if they have had any responses that were actually in favour of the plans."
The City of London Law Society’s own training committee has also highlighted what it calls a lack of "risk analysis" throughout the review.
However, while the idea of ditching the LPC has met with fierce opposition, the TFRG has stuck to its guns. The shake-up, it says, will generate a more stringent assessment of the day-to-day quality of the training contracts, amid suggestions that law firms remain reluctant not to sign off all their trainees as qualified solicitors, even if they are not retained.
"Some training principals consider signing a trainee off as an alternative to raising concerns about suitability and readiness for practice," it argues. "Also, some training principals are reluctant to jeopardise the career of an individual trainee by raising questions as to their suitability for admission."
But one senior partner at a top 10 City firm objects to the idea that firms are running shoddy training programmes.
"If they think firms are allowing trainees who are not up to scratch to qualify, they should investigate. But we take our responsibilities extremely seriously. When you sign off a trainee as a lawyer, you do not do it lightly," he says.
The TFRG is set to bring in more regular Law Society monitoring of trainees’ progress throughout their two-year contracts, as well as introducing an externally-assessed final exam that will become a prerequisite for all trainees prior to qualifying as lawyers.
Some observers have already suggested the increased supervision could add an extra £300 onto the price tag for each training contract.
That is a knock-on effect which is likely to prohibit smaller firms from taking on any trainees under the new regime, should it be approved, and contradicts the Law Society’s stated aim of increasing diversity.
Ultimately though, the legal profession is likely to be content with some low-level change, provided it is made for what it considers to be the right reasons.
As Firth observes: "I just hope they do not miss the opportunity to deregulate the course, which right now is highly prescriptive. That is the one thing everyone agrees on."
