ULaw cashback: A wishy-washy PR exercise is just not good enough

Tongues have certainly been wagging in the legal world following the news earlier this week that the University of Law (ULaw) is to give back to its legal practice course (LPC) students who fail to secure a job after graduating half their tuition fees.

ULaw's guarantee will come into effect for students enrolling on its LPC this coming September, and is clearly a demonstration of the university's confidence in its employability rates. The school has reported that 97 per cent of its full-time LPC students secured employment within nine months of graduation, with some 91 per cent being employed in law.

With tuition fees at the law school ranging from £10,950 to £14,765, depending on the chosen campus - in either London, Birmingham, Bristol, Chester, Guildford, Manchester, or Leeds - a student could be in line for up to a £7,000 rebate if they find themselves unemployable after a year of hard study.

Value for money and employability in legal education remain major concerns for students as they try to shoehorn their way into an already oversaturated profession. So, ULaw's promise would understandably be highly attractive to young lawyers in the making, especially when you consider all the obstacles currently lying in their collective paths.

For example, the number of students who graduated with a law degree hit an all-time high in 2014, while the number of registered training contracts decreased by 16 per cent. Factor in the impact of LASPO, the potential collapse of the criminal lawyer profession, and chartered accountants taking a piece of the legal services pie, and it is no wonder senior lawyers would not recommend a career in law.

However, would-be solicitors would be wise to look at the small print in ULaw's terms and conditions before concluding they are getting more bang for their buck. Future LPC grads will only be able to claim a refund if they fail to secure 'qualifying employment', which is defined by the university as a trainee solicitor, lawyer, other legal professional, or other employment within law or commerce. Those who find themselves as paralegals, legal secretaries, clerks et al need not apply.

In a statement announcing the plan, ULaw's CEO, David Johnston, said: 'More than just a degree, today's students want a clear return on their investment. For law graduates, this means one thing: securing a training contract or a full-time job upon graduation.'

Make no bones about it; the vast majority of students who enrol on the LPC - regardless of who the supplier is - want to qualify as a lawyer. Offering money back to those graduates who fail to achieve that goal will be of little comfort when they fall into what has been previously seen as the perennial underclass of the legal profession: the paralegal.

While ULaw might think it is addressing student anxieties over employability, graduate debt, and value for money, it is, unfortunately, not. Nor is it set to revolutionise the legal training industry, unless 'revolution' is to be defined as an increase in empty promises from other training providers. Considering the university's recently published accounts show underlying profits have soared to £18.5m, and with net income reaching a lofty £70.3m in the year to 31 July 2014, a promise to refund three out of every 100 students half their monstrously expensive tuition fees in the event they become a barista instead of a solicitor is hardly a risk for the nation's first for profit university.

I can, though, understand why ULaw has decided to launch this policy. Despite the impressive financial results, all is not well in the school's garden. The recent loss of two Magic Circle firms - Clifford Chance and Allen & Overy - as clients, along with Baker & McKenzie, to long-time LPC provider rival BPP, coupled with greater competition from traditional or ABS universities, and the rise of apprenticeships, equals greater competition for tuition fees.

While it has retained many big names, picked up Shearman & Sterling and Trowers & Hamlins as clients from Kaplan Law School, and joined forces with Mayer Brown to offer 'articled apprenticeships', it is unsurprising to hear John Latham is to leave his post as the university's president and chief executive less than two years after he took office.

ULaw can of course put into practice whatever strategy it deems likely to make it money. That is, after all, what it is there to do for its owners. But, at the risk of sounding churlish, if its new masters - Global University Systems - really want to be proactive on the issue of employability, it should be honest about individuals' chances of success in accessing the profession, instead of simply checking the depth and girth of a student's wallet. A wishy-washy PR exercise is just not good enough.

John van der Luit-Drummond is deputy editor for Solicitors Journal