Training for today in legal aid

If implemented, the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) solicitors qualifying examination (SQE) will test a combination of skills and legal knowledge in a range of areas, making the legal practice course (LPC) no longer mandatory.

The regulator has voiced concerns regarding the disparity of the entrance requirements ?to study law at university, inconsistencies in grading, ?the LPC’s shift away from its prescribed model, the proliferation of routes into the legal profession, and the high number of institutions and workplaces offering qualifications and training contracts. 

The SRA has suggested that ?the standard of knowledge ?and experience of those ?being admitted as solicitors is inconsistent and, as a result, quality for consumers can no longer be assured. The regulator posits that a standardised assessment could be the solution, leading to higher levels of consistency and competency. 

Young Legal Aid Lawyers (YLAL) has highlighted problems with the current system of qualification. Training contract availability in the legal aid ?sector is decreasing and there ?is an increase in graduates undertaking lengthy periods of ‘paralegalling’ or work experience to optimise their chances. 

The costs are also prohibitive. With LPC fees averaging £11,500, social mobility in the profession ?is restricted and relatively low paralegal salaries are offset against high debt. There is also ?an oversupply of graduates, which increases the competition for training contracts every ?year. As a result, new methods ?of qualification have been introduced, including ?equivalent means and ?solicitors’ apprenticeships. ?The problems, however, persist.  

In preparing for the consultation, the SRA garnered the views of various stakeholders. Employers feel they may be unable to offer the requisite practice areas for the exam and indicated that the two-year time frame for training contracts was arbitrary, as not everyone would gain the necessary skills to be a solicitor in this time. 

Universities are concerned about tailoring degrees to serve both those who practise and those who do not. 

The legal aid sector worries that employers will be unable ?to finance the cost of the standardised assessment due ?to the reductions in legal aid, pushing the costs back onto ?the trainees. 

Anecdotally, many current ?LPC students are working in legal practice during their studies, leading to highly experienced graduates who are not yet fully qualified. For these, the possibility of qualifying without the LPC would be welcome. 

The consultation shows a discordance between the SRA’s stated objectives and the proposal. It notes there is no indicative trend of inadequate training and consumer detriment. Indeed, if the primary focus is the consumer, then emphasis should be on ongoing training and quality assurance throughout years of practice rather than ?on entering the profession. ?This issue is not, however, being consulted upon. 

In addition, the exam may ?lead to a restricted university curriculum and the exclusion of candidates who are unable to get into top-tier schools. Removing the need for the LPC and professional skills course (PSC) – an expensive obstruction to qualification – would reduce costs. However, failing to remove them entirely would result in a two-tier system: those able to finance these qualifications ?and the new exam, and those who cannot. 

Although YLAL welcomes an overhaul of the current training system, the proposal seems to address a problem that does not exist, and is likely to entrench some of the barriers to junior lawyers trying to enter the profession.

Siobhan Taylor-Ward, pictured, is a paralegal at Jackson and Canter and is studying the LPC part time. Gimhani Eriyagolla is a trainee at Bhatt Murphy and a committee member of the Young Legal Aid Lawyers www.younglegalaidlawyers.org