*/
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.
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
National courts are now running the bulk of the world’s war crimes cases and corporate prosecutions are part of this growing trend, reports Chris Stephen