Do we need a Hippocratic oath for solicitors?

The introduction of a single, universal statement of competence applicable to all solicitors could be a powerful symbol. The Solicitors Regulation Authority's proposal is only in the early stages of stakeholder testing at the moment, with initial qualitative consultation taking place with solicitors this month ahead of wider quantitative research stage in the spring.

The draft new benchmark - not yet publicly available but discussed by SRA director of education and training Julie Brannan with Solicitors Journal this week - contains familiar elements. Ethics, professional judgement, management skills, client care, etc would make up its core.

The SRA says this would encapsulate, as a matter of principle, essential competence standards expected of any solicitor at any point in their career and irrespective of their professional context. On the face of it, a Hippocratic oath for solicitors sounds like an inspired idea, but these values are already in the handbook, so why they would need to be restated in a separate document is unclear. That's assuming the statement will physically exist as a written declaration, which the SRA is not sure about.

Either way, it would change little to supervision and enforcement. You only hear about standards when they've not been met, when a solicitor has been in breach or a firm has collapsed. So while a formal document would make expectations crystal clear and perhaps marginally improve active compliance, failure to comply is likely to continue undetected until after the event.

The proposed statement is more interesting because of the backdrop against which it is being crafted. With the development of alternative routes into the profession, the profile of prospective solicitors will no longer be the traditional three-stage lawyer, steeped in legal culture from the first day of the law degree. There is talk - finally, some will say - of introducing an exam at the point of entry into the profession. If this was the case, an individual's education background would be irrelevant as long as they can demonstrate, by passing the exam, that they meet expected professional competence levels.

Taking that logic further, the SRA is already looking at options where it would no longer prescribe the content of courses and not even authorise training providers. In this liberal framework, any organisation could set up as a training provider dispensing education in a way that it believes will prepare its students to meet regulatory standards.

It would involve much more engagement between law firms and course providers, which may be no bad thing. But it would also be a step too far. It is one thing for City firms to design tailored LPCs but a system where professional education is left entirely to the market would be a recipe for disaster.

There is much to say in favour of outcomes-focused regulation, however imperfect it may be in some respects. But it shouldn't be used as an excuse for the regulator to abdicate minimum responsibilities in relation to compliance.

Jean-Yves Gilg is editor of Solicitors Journal

jean-yves.gilg@solicitorsjournal.co.uk

.