Vocation, vocation, vocation

The apprenticeship model will not work for all legal services providers, and it could damage equality in the profession, says John Hodgson

In many ways this is a wheel coming full circle. Until the 1960s most solicitors were 'apprentices', although they might have prepared for their professional exams by sitting in on local university lectures. It is quite possible to educate and train technician grade lawyers through apprenticeship; that is what ILEX does. Most of the firms now offering apprenticeships are pitching them at this level, although, as with legal executives, there is room for further career progression based on experience and merit.

This model makes sense for providers of commoditised legal services. It makes no sense for the major providers of commercial legal services, or for the Bar. These need elite recruits, capable of operating in a demanding commercial and/or intellectual context. The intellectual depth that higher education brings is more valuable here, although the demand for GDL entrants, and their success, shows that it is the level of study, rather than the content, that counts. In this context the competition is global, and all other advanced systems require undergraduate or post-graduate academic qualifications, so major players will continue to recruit traditional entrants.

There is no reason why one size should fit all, given the current diversity of provision of legal services. The main problem of a twin-track approach is equality of opportunity. There is a likelihood that apprenticeship will appeal to the debt averse, and also those with limited personal or family resources. Those from more affluent backgrounds will be happy to incur the costs of a traditional legal education. This will undo much of the good work recently done in opening up the profession to talent from all backgrounds. No doubt some who start as apprentices will bridge the divide, as some managing clerks and legal executives did, and do.

If apprenticeships do become more common, the real challenge will be to ensure that there really is a clear route to full qualification and genuine career opportunities for all, regardless of where they start from.

John Hodgson is a reader in legal education at Nottingham Law School

Vocationally trained lawyers ensure diversity in the profession, and should be treated with the same respect as any lawyer, says Vicky Loughnane

I am proud to be part of the Institute of Legal Executives, an organisation that offers the only route to becoming a qualified lawyer that is open to anyone, regardless of their background or qualifications.

There has been much 'chatter' recently about routes into law and, with university fees increasing, respected firms are now looking at providing 'legal apprenticeships'. This is great news for many aspiring lawyers who, through no fault of their own, find the financial burden of university just too much. But should a lawyer be a truly vocational role? In a word, no.

The legal sector needs to become more diverse, so to effectively cut out an already well-established and respected method of entry would mean a less diverse legal sector.

ILEX does not believe the traditional university route is wrong. In fact, we support it through our popular Graduate Fast-Track Diploma, which helps those wishing to take an alternative post-graduate route. What we do believe though is that university is not the best option for everyone. It's that ethos that ensures the legal sector will evolve and expand to be as diverse as the people it represents.

What should be happening is that vocationally trained lawyers are treated with the same respect and courtesy that is afforded to any other lawyer. Many vocationally trained lawyers have done so later in life, bringing with them a whole wealth of world experience, unavailable to the university graduate.

Some 'legal apprentices' may have juggled work, study and a hectic home life '“ great experience for the busy lawyer career. Why then should the fact that they did not attend university be a reason to look down on them?

As university fees increase, and even as ABSs take hold, it is likely we will see more firms seeking vocational programmes for new employees and more individual students taking the vocational route. They will show their graduate colleagues the respect they rightly deserve; they should be entitled to have the same.

Vicky Loughnane is a legal executive and ILEX council member

On-the-job training may be more client-centric but doesn't guarantee the breadth of knowledge that law degrees confer, says David Stephens

Applicants for university places are dropping for the first time in the modern era '“ that's the era after we as a nation stopped believing in education for its own sake. Choosing to go to university now ought to be a hard-headed commercial decision. Anecdotally, and certainly within my own firm, I find the number of law graduates in support roles as astonishing and sobering as the fact that we regularly receive 600+ graduate applications for every training contract. But should this betoken a change in the philosophy of all-graduate entry to the profession?

Some of the finest practitioners I have known over the years have been those who 'came up the hard way' serving five years 'articles' or qualifying via ILEX. What do they have in common? They had the best client-care skills and breadth of knowledge. Client care does not come naturally to academics, and, despite vast improvements in the LPC, many graduates still arrive without a clue how to interact with clients. Client care takes time, good role models and the right mindset to achieve and you don't learn it at university. But what you do learn there is a lot of law, quicker and more effectively than 'on the job'.

And quality-control of on-the-job training is difficult. While the graduate-only regime guarantees consistency of knowledge, on-the-job training is only as good as the particular firm. Looking back on my own articles in a one-man practice in Cardiff, I shudder at the thought of how many areas of law I simply did not encounter.

Equally, many able lawyers, having spent time in large firms, have great CVs but have largely been involved in high-volume work with introducers and insurance companies, often just doing a small part of the process, and so in fact have no breadth of expertise.

If the profession could organise a proper supervision regime I would welcome the mix. But in reality a move to revert to non-graduate entry will be seen as a lowering of standards so it will never happen. Given the choice '“ academics or apprentices, boffins or schmoozers '“ I'd opt for a bit of each please.

David Stephens is chairman of Battens Solicitors