*/
Profession
“Far too many brilliant young people aren’t finding jobs,” observed Baroness Deech in her opening remarks at the Westminster Legal Policy Seminar, Legal Education Training Review – next steps for regulation, skills and competitiveness , on 8 October. How one dealt with an over-supply of lawyers while widening their access and diversity remained an open question, although the regulators all agreed that it was not their function to control the numbers in the legal profession.
In the course of a full morning, academics, solicitors, paralegals, trainers, regulators and others contributed to the debate over the issues raised by the recent Legal Education and Training Report (LETR). Although the process had been sparked off by the comment of the Chairman of the Legal Services Board that legal education was “not fit for purpose”, the conclusion was that it was indeed fit, though it needed to build on strengths and address weaknesses. Missing from the seminar was any practising barrister, or anyone from Oxford or Cambridge, despite educating a third of the Bar.
“Flexibility” and “outcomes based” were two of the favourite expressions. Flexibility included the way in which people qualify (apprenticeships were mentioned several times), the way in which they work and who does the work. David Holland, Chief Executive Officer, Institute of Paralegals, stated that paralegals now count for half of fee earners. They undertake legal work sufficiently often to count as a practitioner but they are not part of the regulatory system. Solicitor Joy Van Cooten, who thought that the review had not been bold enough, flagged up the question of retaining women in the profession and that paralegals are cheaper to hire.
Christina Blacklaws, Director of Policy, The Co-Operative Legal Services, praised flexibility and said “let’s be positive”. As far as providers are concerned, “their only commodity is their people”. High Street firms are struggling to survive and alternative business structures have “a lot to offer” in being productive and innovative. They now make up 5% of the legal services market. The Co-Op, which employs 600 people, has successfully conducted tendering exercises with chambers that now form a panel working on a fixed fee basis. Its Learning Academy seeks to “crack the social mobility nut” and mentors would-be lawyers from a young age.
When winding up the session that she had chaired, Baroness Deech made a plea for keeping up standards and quality as well as relevance. She doubted the advantage of qualifying in a very narrow way: “how can you just qualify to do Will writing” without also knowing about trusts and tax? It was Antony Townsend, Chief Executive, Solicitors Regulation Authority, though who sounded most radical. He wanted to scrap one size fits all for qualifying as a lawyer. Higher education and employers had to come up with effective routes to meet outcomes by specifying the skills and knowledge required. He called for a “bonfire of education and training regulations” that abolished overlaps and removed prescriptive elements. He wanted the Bar and solicitors to be collaborative rather than to diverge in education and training matters.
Simon Thornton-Wood, Head of Education and Training for the Bar Standards Board, set out the six principles which the BSB had announced on 8 October, including a fresh focus on CPD. Everyone was on board with the latter: Townsend called for the scrapping of the current structure of CPD. He said that it ought to ensure that everyone who works in a firm is competent. The hours-based system does not do this. This also echoed the opening remarks of Professor Julian Webb, who led the research team for the report, and who said that CPD should be “necessary, relevant and just-in-time learning”. During the final questions and answers, someone asked that students should not effectively have to choose between the Bar and being a solicitor in their second year of university. That was as close as the seminar got to fusing education.
In the course of a full morning, academics, solicitors, paralegals, trainers, regulators and others contributed to the debate over the issues raised by the recent Legal Education and Training Report (LETR). Although the process had been sparked off by the comment of the Chairman of the Legal Services Board that legal education was “not fit for purpose”, the conclusion was that it was indeed fit, though it needed to build on strengths and address weaknesses. Missing from the seminar was any practising barrister, or anyone from Oxford or Cambridge, despite educating a third of the Bar.
“Flexibility” and “outcomes based” were two of the favourite expressions. Flexibility included the way in which people qualify (apprenticeships were mentioned several times), the way in which they work and who does the work. David Holland, Chief Executive Officer, Institute of Paralegals, stated that paralegals now count for half of fee earners. They undertake legal work sufficiently often to count as a practitioner but they are not part of the regulatory system. Solicitor Joy Van Cooten, who thought that the review had not been bold enough, flagged up the question of retaining women in the profession and that paralegals are cheaper to hire.
Christina Blacklaws, Director of Policy, The Co-Operative Legal Services, praised flexibility and said “let’s be positive”. As far as providers are concerned, “their only commodity is their people”. High Street firms are struggling to survive and alternative business structures have “a lot to offer” in being productive and innovative. They now make up 5% of the legal services market. The Co-Op, which employs 600 people, has successfully conducted tendering exercises with chambers that now form a panel working on a fixed fee basis. Its Learning Academy seeks to “crack the social mobility nut” and mentors would-be lawyers from a young age.
When winding up the session that she had chaired, Baroness Deech made a plea for keeping up standards and quality as well as relevance. She doubted the advantage of qualifying in a very narrow way: “how can you just qualify to do Will writing” without also knowing about trusts and tax? It was Antony Townsend, Chief Executive, Solicitors Regulation Authority, though who sounded most radical. He wanted to scrap one size fits all for qualifying as a lawyer. Higher education and employers had to come up with effective routes to meet outcomes by specifying the skills and knowledge required. He called for a “bonfire of education and training regulations” that abolished overlaps and removed prescriptive elements. He wanted the Bar and solicitors to be collaborative rather than to diverge in education and training matters.
Simon Thornton-Wood, Head of Education and Training for the Bar Standards Board, set out the six principles which the BSB had announced on 8 October, including a fresh focus on CPD. Everyone was on board with the latter: Townsend called for the scrapping of the current structure of CPD. He said that it ought to ensure that everyone who works in a firm is competent. The hours-based system does not do this. This also echoed the opening remarks of Professor Julian Webb, who led the research team for the report, and who said that CPD should be “necessary, relevant and just-in-time learning”. During the final questions and answers, someone asked that students should not effectively have to choose between the Bar and being a solicitor in their second year of university. That was as close as the seminar got to fusing education.
Profession
“Far too many brilliant young people aren’t finding jobs,” observed Baroness Deech in her opening remarks at the Westminster Legal Policy Seminar, Legal Education Training Review – next steps for regulation, skills and competitiveness, on 8 October. How one dealt with an over-supply of lawyers while widening their access and diversity remained an open question, although the regulators all agreed that it was not their function to control the numbers in the legal profession.
On both fronts – representing the Bar’s interests and protecting the rule of law
Ashley Hodgkinson looks at drug testing methods and some of the most common ways people try to cheat a drug test
Clerksroom Chambers has recruited Matthew Wildish from 3 Paper Buildings (3PB) to a newly created position of Director of Clerking. Matthew joined the team at Clerksroom on 1 June
... have you seen through yours? asks Julian Morgan
Opportunity for female sopranos/contraltos in secondary education, or who have recently finished secondary education but have not yet begun tertiary education. Eligibility includes children of members of the Bar
Fear of the collection and test process is a common factor among clients, especially among vulnerable adults in complex family law cases. Cansford Laboratories shares some tips to help the testing process run as smoothly as possible
Clerksroom Chambers has recruited Matthew Wildish from 3 Paper Buildings (3PB) to a newly created position of Director of Clerking. Matthew joined the team at Clerksroom on 1 June
In this tale of hope, success really has been the best revenge! A difficult journey teaches Rehana Azib QC invaluable lessons along the way
This article is not designed to offend the Judiciary but the quiet word has only taken us so far it is time concerns were recorded formally, says the first set to introduce an external bullying policy By Eleanor Laws QC, Oliver Mosley and Kyan Pucks
The Chief Inspector of the CPS knows first-hand the difficulties prosecutors face but is no pushover. He talks to Anthony Inglese CB about Operation Soteria, putting victims and cooperation at the heart of criminal justice reform, and his unique and life-changing career prosecuting the crime of all crimes, genocide
Having represented many Davids against many Goliaths over a 30+year career at the publicly funded Bar, renowned silk Professor Leslie Thomas QC critically assesses what the Human Rights Act currently under challenge has done for coronial law and equality of arms