Regulation will not of itself fix the problems law firms face over CPD

Why do UK law firms allow their lawyers time and money to learn? Is it because:

• lawyers have to do 16 hours of continuing professional development (CPD);

• staying up-to-date with the law is essential;

• lawyers need to develop business skills such as team building, project management and business finance;

• learning is an essential element of a progressive organisational culture; or

• clients expect excellence?

Your response to the above is likely to affect how you view the Solicitors Regulation Authority's (SRA's) proposals for reforming CPD. As part of its Training for Tomorrow agenda, three options for reform are proposed:

1. mandatory hours go; firms declare their lawyers competent to deliver legal services and staff are trained and supervised;

2. mandatory hours go, replaced by regulations requiring lawyers to plan, record and reflect on learning; or

3. mandatory minimum CPD hours remain with a requirement that they relate to the individual's area of practice; a wider range of learning is recognised.

Under option 1, accountability for compliance would rest with the regulated entity and individual lawyers. For options 2 and 3, the regulated entity would be accountable. The SRA has indicated that it prefers option 1, which measures learning by results, rather than time spent on CPD. This fits with its approach to outcomes-focused regulation and is in line with 70 per cent of professional bodies, according to research by the Professional Associations Research Network.

Martin Coleman, chair of the SRA's education and training committee, has observed that the SRA does not wish "to stifle innovation & development [by imposing] a standardised approach". Your firm would be allowed to determine what type of learning serves it best.

It all sounds rather liberating, so why the choice of options? The SRA makes no bones about it: research and engagement with the profession has shown there is still an appetite for a traditional mandatory approach to CPD. It is the only measure of 'learning' some firms currently have and provides individuals with leverage to get some CPD time. But, for these organisations, the SRA's option 1 carries the risk of reducing CPD to a new type of 'tick box' exercise, only this time the compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) will do the ticking.

Pamela Henderson, a senior law lecturer at Nottingham Law School, researched CPD as part of the Legal Education and Training Review. She found that 90 per cent of solicitors attend courses for CPD and observed that, for many, they present a relatively low commitment of time and money. Taking that option away may be hard for them, because, she explains, "they value their expertise highly and see it as an important aspect of their overall professionalism".

Now that digital learning formats are much more useable, traditional courses are really not the only answer. Legal updates are a few key strokes away. The real value of CPD lies in opportunities to share knowledge, problem solve and develop skills that support technical delivery.

A wake-up call

Let's be clear, reducing regulation is not intended to make life easier for lawyers; it is intended to drive competition. Change, in whatever form it takes, will take effect from the end of the current CPD year (1 November 2014). Firms that are not already tackling their professional development in a meaningful way will be caught napping.

While individual legal expertise is fundamental, technical ability is a given for clients. Client businesses work hard at developing their people and they value the same approach in their lawyers. Law firms have taken different approaches to providing trainees a commercial education.

Nigel Spencer, director of learning and development at Reed Smith, has introduced a full-time legal graduate MBA, as well as a business MA/LPC programme prior to traineeship at his current firm. Both programmes included a placement with a client running a non-legal business project in order to align lawyers' skills with clients' needs. The objective is to significantly shift lawyers' traditional self-perception as legal experts towards an appreciation of their role as trusted business advisers.

A holistic approach

Learning and development has to rise to the challenge of producing people with the right skills to drive excellence in all aspects of legal business. L&D departments are increasingly aware of the need to develop flexible, dynamic and self-directed learning programmes, according to research by Towards Maturity. Again, the need to move towards a more holistic approach to addressing individual and business needs is recognised.

So, what might this look like in practice?

• L&D staff will be trained, resourced and supported to deliver business needs;

• a range of learning methods will be used to support development and performance (e.g. videos, social network learning, coaching, mentoring and seminars);

• broader commercial knowledge and skills will be introduced at an early stage in legal careers; and

• learning will be used to deepen collaboration with client organisations by sharing knowledge and activities.

It is a great time to be doing this. There are some terrific development tools to draw on. Learning design is more sophisticated than ever, and opportunities for flexible and collaborative learning exist in almost bewildering abundance.

Regulation will not of itself fix the problems law firms face over CPD. Whatever the SRA reforms bring, in future L&D will be about facilitating, sharing and creating opportunities to learn for lawyers at all levels of the firm.

Nicola Jones is an L&D specialist and was formerly director of Warwick Legal Training at University of Warwick (www.athenaprofessional.co.uk)