Do you consider that the current system of legal education can provide the lawyers that this country needs?
Written by Hugh Minchinton
The provision of proficient lawyers, is a service that is undoubtedly essential in society. Lawyers are an integral element of the legal system, and without them, justice cannot be served. Consequently, legal education must be of a very high standard if the public is to have confidence in the country’s lawyers. However, in spite of this, the current training for solicitors and barristers has been criticised for a number of reasons, and as a result, doubts are raised as to whether today’s lawyers truly possess the skills and qualities necessary to uphold the efficiency, benefit and importance of the legal system.
The first two routes to becoming a qualified solicitor
Firstly, in order to determine whether the current legal training for solicitors and barristers is sufficient, it is necessary to examine each of the training routes that lawyers can choose to take, starting first with solicitors. Presently, there are three routes that prospective solicitors can take to become qualified. The standard process is to study A-levels, and then take a law degree at university (usually L.L.B. Honours) for three years, studying topics like tort, conveyancing, EU law and criminal law, as well as other areas which are considered necessary for a solicitor to have extensive knowledge of. Alternatively, students can take a degree in another subject and can do an additional year’s training in core legal subjects, and take the Common Professional Examination. Regardless of which of these two routes the student decides to take, the Legal Practice Course follows, and is a one year course which is more practically based and involves training in the skills of negotiation, conveyancing, advocacy, drafting documents, legal research and client-interviewing, as well as having an emphasis on business management. However, even after passing this course, the student must subsequently obtain a training contract so as to work in a solicitor’s firm for two years, gaining practical experience. Students can also undertake this training period in certain other legal organisations like the Crown Prosecution Service, or the legal department of a local authority. It is only after completing this training period that the student becomes a qualified solicitor.
Merits and Drawbacks of the training routes
Before explaining the third means of becoming a solicitor, it is necessary to analyse both the advantages and disadvantages of these first two routes. For example, one positive attribute is that both involve a good combination of academic work (e.g. the law degree or CPE) and practical education i.e. the Legal Practice Course and the two-year training period in a solicitor’s office. In addition, although it is true to say that a definite disadvantage of the legal education is the high expense; the L.L.B. Honours Degree costs £3,000 a year and is a three year course, and the Legal Practice Course costs £7,000, there are loans available for students which enable them to not pay the fees back until they get a job which pays them a certain amount of minimal yearly money - around £18,000. Therefore, perhaps the disadvantage of the substantial expenses that students have to pay for their legal training is not so important (although certainly not a negligible point). Moreover, in some universities, four year degree courses are available, which combine a law qualification and a practical course. With this option, students only have to pay £1,000 a year, thus slightly reducing the problem of cost.
Nevertheless, although there are some possible remedies to the problems of expensive legal training, it does raise the issue of whether today’s solicitors can only become such people if they have the requisite middle-class background, for perhaps it is largely these wealthy, middle-class people that can cope with the early financial hardship. In so doing, it raises the question as to whether many of today’s solicitors truly are what this country needs. Although the public may have confidence in a middle-class solicitor who has qualities like affluence, prestigious background and a high degree of eloquence, it brings up the matter of whether the legal profession is truly accessible to and representative of the average member of the public who is perhaps not so privileged in terms of riches or background, questioning the relevance of the recent Equal Opportunities legislation which has been introduced.
Even the third available route to becoming a solicitor can be restrictive to students who do not have a well-off background. The route involves passing four GCSE’s, passing the Part 1 and 2 Exams of the Institute of Legal Executives, followed by working for two years in a solicitor’s office. Subsequently, the next step is to be admitted as a Fellow of the Institute of the Legal
Executives, and in order to achieve this, the student must have worked in a solicitor’s office for five years and be over 25 years old. Although it is true to say that the student will have in fact earnt some money at this point from working in a solicitor’s office, unless they take the two year-training period and pass the final exams, they will have to pay the £7,000 fee of the Legal Practice Course so as to qualify as a solicitor. In fine, more often than not, students will have to pay considerable fees for their legal training, regardless of their chosen route, and for families who did not possess a rich, middle-class background, it is frequently extreme financial adversity.
It should also be stated that it is not just the sheer expense of the solicitor’s training that questions the suitability of this country’s solicitors. Another possible problem is that for qualified solicitors who have acquired such a status by taking the Common Professional Examination, have only studied one year of formal law, raising doubts as to whether lawyers who have taken this course truly have sufficient academic knowledge of the necessary legal subjects. For on the law degree, there is a total of three years study, as opposed to just the one of the Common Professional Examination, in which all the necessary topics like tort, criminal law, conveyancing etc. are fitted into just one year. The suitability of the C.P.E. is therefore questionable. Moreover, the current legal education of solicitors has actually been criticised for not having enough practical training and having too much of an emphasis on academic learning. In fact, an individual known as Michael Zander have suggested that the training system should be altered, in order that prospective solicitors do indeed have more of a practical element to their training than is currently being provided.
An additional problem of solicitors’ legal training is that even after qualifying, the solicitors may not be able to acquire a training contract in a solicitor’s firm, for the fact of the matter is that there are simply more students becoming qualified solicitors than there are training contracts available in solicitor’s firms. On the other hand, however, this point could be viewed as actually having a positive effect on the quality of this country’s solicitors. If there are less training contracts available to qualified solicitors, then solicitor’s firms will only select the crème de la crème of those who have qualified, thus ensuring a high standard of solicitors in our country. This choice of students based purely on talent is also beneficial in the sense that the selection process is not based upon middle-class qualities like being highly articulate, wealthy and having an acclaimed background, and instead is focused purely on ability.
Furthermore, it should also be stated that more often than not, the system of legal training for solicitors is essentially a good one, usually continuing to appoint knowledgeable and proficient solicitors whose competence the public can rely upon. Consequently, it is true to say that the training for solicitors has both flaws and merits, and it is also correct to say that none of these should be ignored when making a judgement of the suitability of solicitors’ training.
Potential Reforms to the Training of Solicitors
It clearly be seen that there are some disadvantages to the legal education of solicitors, and as a result, it would be wise if alternative measures could be introduced in order to deal with or at least ease the current training problems for lawyers. For example, as mentioned earlier, Michael Zander has suggested that the legal training system for lawyers should be reformed to provide more practical skills. In addition, Charter 88, a campaign group, suggest that legal training should be free, so that people from all backgrounds are able to enter the legal profession, not just students from middle-class families who have the sufficient wealth needed to afford the costly fees of the legal training.
Other possible changes to the legal training could be to provide scholarships to very skilled students who come from poorer families, and a similar option to this is actually in place at present; students whose parents do not earn the minimum amount of income necessary to have to pay for university fees can have their charges waived. Moreover, another possible remedy to the high costs of the training could be for more universities to offer the four-year degree course that some universities already do, enabling students to only have to pay £1,000 a year.
With regard to the problem of over-supply of qualified solicitors, a possible solution to this could be to only accept on to the Legal Practice Course the number of students that was equivalent to the number of training contracts. The selection process of students would be based on who had performed most proficiently in whatever their previous examination i.e. the law degree, C.P.E. or ILEX Part 1 and 2 exams. In so doing, only the most able students would be able to get on to the L.P.C. and would not only solve the problem of over-supply but would also ensure that only the most proficient and therefore most necessary prospective lawyers were able to continue their legal education.
The Training Routes of Prospective Barristers
However, in order to answer the question posed at the beginning of this essay, it is necessary to also analyse the training of barristers so as to determine whether it does indeed produce the lawyers that this country has need of.
Firstly, therefore, it would be wise to examine the various training routes currently available for prospective barristers. The most common first step is to take the L.L.B Honours degree that some solicitors also take, or to study a non-law degree and then take the one-year Common Professional Examination. There is also a third alternative for non- graduate mature students and this is to take a two-year long Common Professional Examination. Regardless of which of these routes the student decides to choose, they must subsequently become a member of one of the four Inns of Court School of Law – Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Lincoln Inn or Gray’s Inn. Formerly, all student barristers had to dine at their Inn twelve times before being called to the Bar, and although students still can do so, there are also weekend residential courses which may be more practical in the sense that students who are attending courses outside of London may not have to spend so much money on travel costs. It is true to state that the reasons behind having to dine at one of the Inns are justifiable in theory; it was considered a way of prospective barristers being able to meet senior barristers and judges so as to make contacts and to have edifying legal discussions. In practice however, very few barristers do dine at their Inns and students are rare to meet anyone else apart from other students.
Returning to the steps of barrister’s legal training though, students must, after becoming a member of one of the Inns and thus attending at theirs, take the one- year Bar Vocational Training Course prior to being called to the Bar and becoming a qualified barrister. Alternatively, for those students who wish to become non-practising barristers, there is also the one-year Bar Examination Course. With regard to the Bar Vocational Course, though, it is a practically based course which stresses the skills of drafting documents for use in areas like advocacy and negotiation. Nonetheless, even after being called to the Bar, unless qualified barristers want to work as ones with a non-practising capacity, they must carry out their practical, “on the job” training known as ‘pupillage’, which essentially consists of working with an established barrister for twelve months or with two different pupil masters for six months each. During this time, they do earn a small amount of money, normally around half of the amount that trainee solicitors receive. It is also significant to note that trainee barristers must participate in a scheme of continuing education arranged by the Bar Council. Following trainee’s first six months of pupillage, barristers are able to appear in court and can carry out their own cases, therefore being able to practise as an established barrister.
Analysing the advantages and disadvantages of the legal education of barristers, it is certainly accurate to state that the pros and cons are similar to those of solicitors. For example, prospective barristers frequently also face the problem of cost, as most students take either a standard L.L.B. Honours degree or take the non-law degree with the one-year Common Professional Examination. The actual law degree, as stated earlier, costs £3,000 a year and is a three-year course, and for those students studying a non-law degree with the C.P.E., will be charged something similar. The problem of cost is worsened by the fact that during pupillage, trainee barristers earn very little money, and so find it hard to support themselves during their legal training.
Another problem applicable to solicitors as well though is the fact that those taking the C.P.E., will, as mentioned earlier, be only studying one year of formal law as opposed to the three of the law degree, or even the two of the Common Professional Examination studied by non-graduate, mature students. In effect, it raises doubts as to whether barristers who have taken this course have sufficient knowledge of the necessary topics.
It should also be stated that, like solicitors who find that there are less training contracts from solicitors’ firms than there are students qualifying, barristers also have the problem of over-supply; for there are more qualified barristers looking for pupillage placements than there are pupillage placements available. This negative attribute of the training system also highlights another disadvantage; as six more bodies recently started to offer the Bar Vocational Course, more people are able to qualify as barristers and it is due to this reason that current numbers of pupillage positions with established barristers are insufficient. A final problem with the training system, solely applying to barristers’ training, is that those students who dine at their particular Inn twelve times whilst attending very rarely meet senior barristers or judges, despite the fact that this was the reasoning behind students dining at their Inn. It therefore raises the question of whether attending at an Inn is at all helpful for students wishing to gain legal knowledge.
Nevertheless, there are certainly some advantages of the training system, one case in point being the fact that (as previously mentioned) there are many loans available for students in order to afford the substantial costs of barristers training, as well as the option that some universities offer of being able to combine a legal qualification with a practical course, saving several thousand pounds. Additionally, even though the system could be criticised for not having enough practical training as per the solicitors’ training system, barristers’ legal education involves a good combination of practical and academic training. Furthermore, although there are less pupillage placements than qualifying barristers, this could once again be viewed as being a positive development, for it ensures that only the most extremely talented students become barristers and so it does indeed produce lawyers that this country needs, as well as basing the selection process on ability rather than background.
Possible reforms that could be implemented in order to improve the training of barristers are very similar to those of solicitors. For instance, scholarships could be introduced to gifted students who come from a poor background, or alternatively, a system for barristers’ training equivalent to that proposed by Charter 88 for solicitors’ training could be put into effect; barristers’ legal education could be free so that students from all backgrounds could go into the legal profession. Apropos the complication of over-supply, a system like the one previously suggested to improve solicitors’ training could be introduced, where the Inns of Court School and the other bodies who offer the Bar Vocational Course only accept the same, certain number of students, the collective number of which equaled or was very close to the number of pupillage positions available. This, like the suggestion for solicitors’ training reforms, would also ensure that only the most proficient prospective barristers would be allowed to take the Bar Vocational Course, for only the students who had performed the most competently in whatever their prior exam i.e. the law degree, one-year C.P.E. or two-year C.P.E. would be allowed to study the Bar Vocational Course. It is these ideas of reform which I consider would improve the current training system for barristers, and would therefore improve the quality of this country’s lawyers.
To sum up, in terms of whether the present legal education provides the lawyers that this country needs, I would say that the advantages of the training system outweigh the drawbacks. Although high financial costs are certainly an issue, the many different loans that are available to students mean that this problem of substantial expense is not incapable of being surmounted. As a result of cost being not so great a problem, the legal profession can be therefore viewed as being more accessible to and representative of the average member of the public, and this could provide solicitors that this country does need, by showing that the legal profession is not just an area restricted to wealthy middle-class families who can cope with the early financial difficulty. In addition, students can choose any of the aforesaid routes that they wish to take to become either a solicitor or barrister, providing a degree of flexibility which can somewhat serve to accommodate the varying attitudes and interests of the large numbers of students wanting to enter the legal profession. Moreover, although the current legal training system has been criticised for not involving enough practical training, there is still however a fair amount for both prospective solicitors and barristers. Most importantly of all though, the over-supply of students (those wanting to become barristers or solicitors) means that the public is ensured only an elite group of lawyers who have reached their positions purely on their proficiency. Furthermore, it is essentially this quality, not prestigious background, that is what this country needs in its lawyers, and consequently, I would state that the current legal training for barristers and solicitors is on the whole an appropriate and thorough system which does indeed provide lawyers which this country will indeed benefit from having.