Do you consider that the current system of legal education and training can provide the lawyerís that this country needs?

Written by Steven Dibley (AS Law)

   It is my personal understanding that the term ìlawyerî is the collective term given to solicitors and barristers, who are jointly referred to as the legal profession. A solicitor being a member of the legal profession competent to advise clients and instruct barristers but not appearing as an advocate except in certain lower courts. This is contrary to the Access to Justice Act 1999, which allows solicitors full rights of audience. In contrast, a barrister is considered as a lawyer who is entitled to represent clients in the higher law courts. They specialise in advocacy, dealing with far more significant cases than solicitors. The qualities this country needs to see in its lawyers are as follows; they need to have an extensive knowledge of the legal profession and have studied it for many years. In addition, it is essential they are confident and possess the right skills to operate in this area of employment. For example, it is no use if a lawyer has all the theoretical knowledge of law but is subsequently incompetent in communicating with clients on a one to one basis or representing them in court. Furthermore, a lawyer needs to be efficient, as they will tend to be dealing with a multitude of paper work and a number of clients etc. Therefore it is required that they can complete the workload at speed whilst maintaining an appropriate standard. They also need to be successful in what they do and go about their job effectively winning many cases if they specialise in advocacy or satisfying clientís expectations in other fields such as conveyancing or writing wills. Finally, it is my sentiment that a lawyer must be cost effective and of an optimum standard no matter which member of society theyíre representing, whether they are at the very top or bottom of the social hierarchy. If this were not common practice then there would be many cases where justice would be denied and the social elite would escape punishment. In contrast, a less well-financed client would be unable to supplement the fees of a top lawyer so would have to settle and may therefore be less well represented. This inconsistency raises one of many ethical issues, which I will talk about later in the essay. 

   The current system of legal education in place sees barristers and solicitors qualifying in their professions through different routes. To become a solicitor it is usual to have a law degree, although those with a degree in a subject other than law can do an extra yearís training in core legal subjects, and take the Common Professional Course (CPE). The next stage would be to then take the legal practice course for one year, which is practically based and includes training in skills such as interviewing, negotiation, advocacy, drafting documents and legal research. They would then proceed in doing a two-year training period, on a training contract, in a solicitors firm in order to gain practical experience. They will also have to complete a 20-day professional skills course. At the end of this time, the trainee will be admitted by the law society and his name added to the roll of solicitors. There is also another route for mature non-graduates who have to pass the Institute of Legal Executive (ILEX) part I and II exams, work for 2 years in a solicitors office before being admitted as a fellow of ILEX. They would also then take the Legal Practice course and the 2-year training before qualifying as a solicitor. In contrast, a barrister with a law degree would need to become a member of an Inn of court where they would dine with qualified barristers in order for them to make connections in the industry. Again students with a degree in something other than law could get to this stage by taking the CPE for one year. Mature non-graduate students would also take this but for 2-years. Having dined at an Inn of court you can either take a one-year vocational course or a one-year Bar examination course before getting called to the bar. They then have to find pupillage for 12 months before they can practise as a barrister. 

   As I mentioned earlier, it is a legitimate expectation that whether you are recruiting the services of a lawyer or barrister there is a certain level of performance, which should be delivered. I also pointed out that there is absolutely no use having an abundance of legal knowledge at your discretion if you have an absence of practical skills. There have been countless examples of negligence in and out of the courtroom and complaints have been made against lawyers as a result. This happened in Griffiths v Dawson (1993) where solicitors for the plaintiff had failed to make the correct application in divorce proceedings against her husband. As a result the plaintiff lost financially and the solicitors were ordered to pay her £21,000 in compensation. With this in mind, I therefore believe that the current training system is positive in abolishing this kind of negligence from the legal profession, as there is a culmination of skills taught. For example, a law degree would teach you the theoretical side of law whereas the legal practice course would teach more practical aspects such as interviewing and advocacy. In addition the 2-year training period would be an extension of this training, the student would now seek a training contract and gain hands on experience in a law firm being given more responsibility as the training period progressed until they would eventually begin dealing with their own clients. Students aspiring to be a barrister would also do a law degree before doing a one year vocational training course, which emphasises the practical skills of drafting pleadings for use in court, negotiation and advocacy. They would also then go on to do a one-year pupillage whereby they would become a pupil to a qualified barrister. This effectively involves work shadowing that barrister. There is a requirement that they take part in a programme of continuing education organised by the bar council. After the first six months of pupillage, barristers are eligible to appear in court and may conduct their own cases. This emphasis on the length of training is essential in reinforcing the required skills into the minds of the trainee lawyers and should subsequently remove such negligent actions and provide this country with the lawyers it needs. 

   In addition, a cost effective, efficient service is actively sought. However, the problem with achieving this is is influenced by the fact that two different types of lawyers are trained to play two different roles. There are two criticisms concerning this division, namely cost and inefficiency. Firstly, it is well publicised that trainee solicitors and barristers suffer huge financial deficits and many find it a struggle to cope with these spiralling debts. Subsequently the legal profession becomes one of restricted opportunity as many less well financed students are unable to enter the profession despite perhaps being distinctly more capable than those that make it. This is morally and ethically wrong but is an entity within the current training system. Summarily, the problem that is apparent is that in order to produce the lawyers that this country seeks there needs to be a balance between the lengthy training and the ethical issues surrounding the imbalance of opportunity. There is a certain irony that the current training system proves to be ìtoo costlyî, in losing many prospectively able student solicitors and barristers. 

   The inefficiency of the system is more ambiguous, however is apparent. The problem is that training to become a solicitor or indeed a barrister requires a lot of hard work and sacrifices. Firstly, there is the issue of finance and whether a student is prepared to tackle the debts but however it must be considered that there is a huge financial reward there if the student makes it to the top of their profession. It could also be considered that this long training period is efficient in that it filters out all the students who are not so committed to becoming a lawyer and that only the most committed will aspire to earn the top wages.  

   The system is however inefficient in that the divide in the profession is wasteful of talent and is perhaps too early. I believe this because once graduating from university with a law degree a student has to make a decision as to whether they want to become a solicitor or barrister. This is fair enough as most will have already made that decision a long time prior. However some students will have not and will subsequently have to make a crucial decision, which will influence the course of their career and life. This may result in some making the wrong decision and ending up wasting many years studying for something they donít want to do. Also, the early divide means a loss of talent could occur as a student may well have all the right credentials to become a top barrister and then opt to study to become a solicitor. This problem could be resolved if the divide in professions was not so early and students had the opportunity to learn a little about both professions in order to make an informed decisions as to which they want to work towards and which best suits their abilities.

   Further examples of inefficiency in the training system are, firstly, that a trainee barrister may get their law degree and do a vocational course only to get rejected at the Bar. This is a total waste of their time and effort and leaves them with qualifications in a profession they can no longer pursue. Another instance of this issue is if a woman becomes pregnant during her training period. This sees her hopes of becoming a lawyer instantly diminish. Unfortunately the current manner in which the system works would not accommodate for a mother training to be a lawyer as she would simply not have the time to accommodate both. That is why the profession still remains to be male dominated. Becoming a lawyer requires total commitment and a woman has to make a decision as to whether she wants to raise a family or become a lawyer and stick to it. Sadly, the legal professional at present is still behind times and there are many examples of sexual discrimination to this day.

   In order for this country to get the lawyers it needs they have to be accessible to all members of the community. At present the middle-class image of solicitors puts many people of using them, especially for problems such as social security and employment. This maybe the case, if for example, someone is discriminated against in the work place but instead of making an official complaint and proceed in forcing a tribunal against their employer they will simply dismiss the incident, which is an injustice. The reason for them doing so may well be the fact that they are intimidated by the middle-class persona that surrounds the legal profession and this is not the way it should be. However, the current training system is partly to blame for this due to way in which it limits students from less privileged backgrounds entering the profession, as I already spoke about earlier in the essay. If there were to be a reform within the training system, which enabled such candidates to cope with the financial strains of training to become a lawyer then perhaps the publicís attitude to lawyers would change.

   One argument that should be raised is whether we actually need professional lawyers at all. This is a valid argument as unqualified legal advisers in agencies such as the Citizensí Advice Bureaux give general advice free to anyone on a variety of issues mostly connected to social welfare problems and debt, but they also advise on some legal matters. Hence, does the public really need solicitors and barrister if this service is available at no cost, provides them with competent legal advice from experienced volunteers and does not provide the same kind of intimidation as the so called middle classed lawyers? However, in opposition to this, it should also be considered that these legal advisers are people who have had some legal training but who are not qualified lawyers so cannot supply the same quality of service as a fully qualified lawyer and cannot represent people in court.

   There is also, currently, evidence of a market control theory in existence, which suggests that professions exist not to provide the best services, but as a way of controlling competition so the emphasis on high academic qualifications can be seen as a way of limiting entry to the market. But this is not necessarily a bad thing, as it will mean that only the most able students will be progressing through the system and becoming qualified lawyers. As a result the service available to the public will be of a higher standard, which will mean this country will be provided with the lawyers it needs. However, in contrast to this, the control theory will have an adverse effect on the fees that solicitors and barristers will be able to charge. This is because if the market is smaller and of a higher standard they will be able to charge more due to the lack of competition. The lawyers concerned may well see this as a reasonable thing to do as they are the most academically qualified and are providing their clients with an excellent service. However, they are therefore limiting the type of client they will attract as most will not be able to afford their costs.

   One of the reasons why this question is so important is that legal education and training provides not only lawyers, but also eventually the judiciary. This is because the judiciary is made up of experienced lawyers. Taking this into account, only when the legal profession becomes more mixed in terms of race, class and sex will the judiciary follow suit. Previously, and perhaps even today, the legal profession is considered as being white-male dominated with both women an ethnic minorities being under represented in the higher levels of the legal profession. In the past the Bar and the Inns of Court have always been seen as being like gentlemanís clubs, which are unwelcome to women. But thankfully this kind of discrimination is being filtered out of the legal profession and only when this is complete will there be a fairer representation among the judiciary and QCs alike. This change has already begun to take place as women are forming an increasing number of entrants to the professions. They now make up just over half of new solicitors and just under half of new entrants to the Bar. In the last few years the number of entrants to the solicitorsí profession has risen substantially. In 2000, 19 per cent of those admitted as solicitors were from a background of an ethnic minority.

   Reforms that I would like this see take place in the legal training system are the introduction of a more balanced representation of students from varying social backgrounds. I believe that the current legal profession is providing the public with the wrong impression as men of a middle class background too heavily dominate it. The consequences of this are that this intimidates people and lawyers lose potential clients. I way of overcoming this would be to introduce a system which assist less well off students financially so they would be able to train to become lawyers and not be held back by financial restraints. Subsequently, we would see a much more balanced representation of people throughout the legal profession.

   In conclusion, I believe that although the current system of legal education provides the country with a very high standard of lawyers due to the lengthy training schedule, which compromises of both theoretical and practical elements it does not provide the country with the lawyers it really needs. I believe this because there are too many ethical issues, which go against the current system and result in an imbalance of opportunity.

 Written by Steven Dibley (AS Law)

October 2003.