Julian Webb: LETR changes are more than 'tweaks' to the system

The legal education system is not fundamentally broken, but quality, accessibility and flexibility need to be enhanced to make sure that it remains fit for the future, said Professor Julian Webb, leader of the LETR research team.

As the report was made public last week, Webb, speaking to Solicitors Journal, points to 'day one' outcomes as a major message to come out of the review. Regulators should place emphasis on these as a means of ensuring competence is actually achieved in the appropriate range of skills and knowledge for different professional roles.

"Flexibility of access, particularly through non-graduate entry (apprenticeships) and progression from paralegal roles, should be improved and the consistency and transparency of transfer rules between authorised occupations enhanced.

"Conduct standards and guidance on offering internships and work experience should be introduced to help mediate inequalities in access," says Webb.

Another major vein of the report was the establishment of more consistent data on the range of legal services education and training (LSET), and the creation of a "one-stop information hub".

"Innovation in legal education should be encouraged by regulators - by the setting up of Legal Education Labs, for instance, that will facilitate collaboration in the formation, testing and dissemination of new forms of legal education."

Greater integration of stages of education and training, and particularly vocational training and workplace learning should be encouraged and supported by regulation said Webb. This in turn will create flexibility in approaches to LSET, and a move away from 'time served' as a significant criterion for satisfaction of training.

Embedded in the system

Setting levels of competence across core skills and reserved activities is an issue highlighted in the report.

"We need to take apart the idea of 'levels of competence' and recognise that there is a particular relationship between competence, outcomes and levels of learning," says Webb.

"Competence in the LETR approach is defined in terms of the knowledge and skills required to do a 'job'. These competences are defined as 'day one' outcomes for a solicitor, barrister, paralegal, etc. The day one outcomes may be satisfied by achieving the learning outcomes prescribed for a qualification (or more often, a set of qualifications) and some workplace training.

"Outcomes may be achieved at different levels (measured against the National Qualification Framework), depending on the nature and complexity of the knowledge and skills required - hence the distinction drawn in the report between a general CILEx paralegal qualification at level 3 and the minimum of level 6 for authorised practice."

Much of this framework is already embedded in the system, says Webb, "but we do not have day one outcomes that are properly evidence-based, and learning outcomes for the different stages of LSET have not been 'reverse-engineered' from the point of qualification".

The relationship between periods of workplace and classroom learning is also not necessarily clear, says Webb.

"Does workplace learning provide a context for practising and applying existing knowledge and skills, or does it take them to a new (higher) level? Different training models might legitimately take a different approach, so that is a question that the frontline regulators need to address for themselves in the next phase, in the context of their own LSET model."

Webb continues: "If these are not addressed then there is a greater continuing risk of gaps between stages of training, and a limit on the opportunity to develop what educationalists call a 'spiral curriculum', where learners have the opportunity to learn and practise skills at succeeding and more complex levels.

"Again, we would emphasise that the change of perspective that we are advocating here is not mere tweaking but if carried out properly would constitute quite fundamental change in legal education."

Creativity and innovation

The report acknowledges that the Foundations as they are serve a purpose, and any additions or subtractions would be relatively arbitrary, says Webb. There was suggestion that the Foundations as taught on the LLB and GLD should change or be reassessed.

"But there needs to be rethinking of the way in which the Foundations are taught and learned and assessed. Would we want standardisation if that meant, in effect a 'national curriculum' for the law degree? No. This would not stimulate creativity or innovation in teaching and learning.

"We do, though, want to improve standards, and this is a key message of the report, across the board, not just for the LLB/GDL. Setting more consistent outcomes, and having more rigorous processes of standardising assessment are the key mechanisms the report highlights for this purpose."

There is a strong perception in the profession that the standards of legal writing and drafting has declined, and this is another element of education providers must address, says Webb.

Anecdotal evidence suggests a decline, but Webb says there is little in the way of clear evidence that the writing skills of today's graduates are worse those of graduates 20 years ago. But we cannot change the way we teach until we carry out research, says Webb.

"We need a better quality of research, along the lines of the correlational or longitudinal studies that are carried out, for example, in Education and in Medical Education," says Webb.

"Unless we have such measurement studies, it is very difficult to say with clarity and confidence that one approach to legal education is better than another; or that one cohort of learners 20 years ago were more proficient than current learners, and why that was so.

"We also, as legal educators, need to take account of the considerable research into writing practices that has been undertaken in other disciplines, and adapt the successes of those approaches for our own discipline and profession."

Regulation, regulation, regulation

Many commentators have said that the LETR missed a trick when it comes to the regulation of paralegals. So why did the report go down a route of voluntary regulation?

"Paralegals within the regulated sector are regulated indirectly by virtue of their employment within regulated entities, "explains Webb.

While there is some evidence that adequate training and supervision are not always being provided, to recommend individual regulation would not necessarily address the failure of responsibility, believes Webb.

"We would rather see the emphasis placed on entity regulation and enforcement to ensure that proper standards of training and supervision are maintained. Voluntary licensure is then more about giving recognition to and supporting career progression for paralegal staff."

Sum of its parts

One of the major suggestions to come out of the report is the formation of a Legal Education Council, details of which Webb says have been deliberately left out of the report and will be addressed in the next stage of the review.

Webb envisages the council playing a role in future convergence of front-line regulation; in shaping policy between the LSB and government.

"It is essential for regulators to work together and collaborate on legal educational standards, structures, practices and guidelines.

"Regulators should strongly encourage providers to collaborate on this as well, so that best practice and innovation in legal education can be demonstrated, tested, and disseminated widely in our jurisdictions."

One specific recommendation, endorsed by SRA board chairman Charles Plant, is to scrap time-based CPD points. Webb says this puts a greater onus on individuals but that other jurisdictions have already gone down this route successfully.

"For example Rule 67.1 of the Code of Conduct for the Law Society of Alberta defines continuing professional development as any learning activity that is:

• relevant to the professional needs of a lawyer;

• pertinent to long-term career interests as a lawyer;

• in the interests of the employer of a lawyer or

• related to the professional ethics and responsibilities of lawyers.

"The Alberta rules go on to require that 'Continuing professional development must contain significant substantive, technical, practical or intellectual content. It is each lawyer's responsibility to determine whether a learning activity meets these criteria and therefore qualifies as continuing professional development."

This is normally achieved says Webb by showing that the individual practitioner has identified their learning needs for the year and a set of activities designed to meet those needs.

"Most professions that adopt a benefit/cyclical model provide paper or online planning tools to support this process, but it does also tend to mean that professions can move away from accrediting CPD providers, or at least accrediting specific hours of CPD. Those resources can then be reallocated to monitoring and ensuring that entities (or individuals) are properly accountable for managing the CPD process and meeting any necessary outcomes.

Many have said the initial stage in the LETR missed an opportunity to overhaul legal education, but Webb is quick to defend the report and its remit.

"While the approach offered is deliberately incremental, it would be a mistake to regard these changes simply as discrete 'tweaks' to the system. There are a number of common threads and, if properly implemented, the whole should be greater than the sum of the parts."