Law schools can't keep up with market changes

Every part of legal education and training, from cradle to grave, process and content, is under review by regulators following the publication of the Legal Education Training Review last year. This will affect every legal service provider. Unparalleled change is underway.

On 21 May, the Solicitors Regulation Authority announced its decision to remove the necessity of 16 hours of compulsory CPD training
per year.

Notwithstanding further changes led by regulators, market forces are already having an impact on legal education.Significant changes in the law and processes, for example in civil litigation and legal aid, are impacting on the provision and delivery of traditional work. New entrants, particularly alternative business structures, are creating new competition in the market. Changes in the legal services sector are affecting legal education and training.

Since 2008/09, the total number of students applying for the LPC has fallen by 37.5 per cent (statistics are from the Central Admission Board, the admissions organisation for full-time LPC applications), although this period has also seen an increase in part-time study on the LPC.

In the last 15 months, four providers have withdrawn their LPC programmes: Oxford Brookes (March 2013); Plymouth (February 2014); Anglia Ruskin (March 2014); and National College of Legal Training
(June 2013).

In April, Kaplan, the third biggest private provider of the BPTC in London, became the first to withdraw the programme.

From a business perspective, law schools are reviewing the economic viability of programmes. The cost of the programmes, particularly postgraduate law courses, is significant due to the need for up to date content, bearing in mind the constant changes in the law and legal procedure. Extra-curricular content is also needed to meet student needs, again with a significant cost. A minimum number of students are needed to make these courses possible.

Students have been critical of the speed and timing of the decisions to withdraw programmes of study – especially after courses had been advertised, applications submitted, offers made and places accepted. Students have been left with alternative arrangements affecting their travel, accommodation and plans. This has led to formal student complaints, as the recent BBC Freedom of Information Request to universities revealed.

There will be little or no sympathy for education providers. In the same way that law firms are adapting to change in the market, education providers must do likewise. Regulators are making decisions about the long-term plans for legal education and training. Education providers need to respond to new and changing learning and training needs. One example is a programme of study for legal service apprentices. New and diverse programmes are needed to meet more diverse learning, training and business needs.

While changes in clients’ and businesses’ needs will inevitably lead to a change in demand for learning and training, firms need to reflect on their own education and training needs to ensure they can be met in the
evolving market. SJ

Jackie Panter is associate head of Manchester Law School, Manchester Metropolitan University