A school
leaver, with an inkling that they might want to be a ‘lawyer’ when they
grow up, can now take so many different paths.
Of course there is the first decision, not a new one, which is whether
or not to do a law degree (figures change slightly year on year but generally
about half of those who qualify as solicitors are non-law graduates). Even for those who choose to do a law degree,
the path is not straightforward. Do they
stick to a ‘traditional’ three year law degree?
Do they go for a three year law degree ‘with a twist’, such as the excellent
problem-based learning degree at York University (as previously, I must declare
an interest here as I do some tutoring on this course)? Do they go for the new two-year degree being
offered by the College of Law? Or do they go for the five-year course at
Northumbria, which combines the academic, vocational and training stages all in
one?
Degree
in the bag, what’s the next stage?
Focusing on those looking to become solicitors, the decision of where to
do your LPC is no longer straightforward (assuming you are in a position to
have a choice). Options for LPC are now more
varied than ever, albeit that some of these are tied to particular firms. The most recent additions to the LPC stable
are the MA (LPC with Business) being offered to Reed Smith prospective trainees,
and the new internationally focused LPC being offered by the College of Law in association
with CMS Cameron McKenna.
Of
course all of this must be examined in the context of the ongoing Legal Education
and Training Review (LETR). As has been
widely publicised, more common training of would-be lawyers, abolishing the
concept of a qualifying law degree, sector-wide CPD, and scrapping the training
contract and pupillage are among the more radical options being considered by
the LETR. With a core mission being to
simplify routes in and around the profession, ensuring a “structure that
increases choice over the processes of qualification, whilst delivering greater
certainty to the professions and to consumers as to the quality of outcomes
achieved”, it will be fascinating to see where the LETR will end up in terms of
recommendations.
Then
you have the ‘Mayson’ approach. Professor Stephen Mayson has argued, in a
recent paper authored with John Randall and published in February of this year,
that an (improved) LPC should be the gateway to qualification as a solicitor
but that there should be post qualification requirements for those practising
in reserved areas. Of course this approach
does raise the question (neatly asked by Professor Richard Moorhead in his
Lawyer Watch blog) of what exactly is the point of a title that doesn’t entitle
you to do anything.
Even
limiting the discussion to the system as is, aspiring lawyers have a much wider
choice now in terms of what type of organisation to work for once the academic
and vocational stages have been completed.
For barristers, there is now so much more on offer than just a
traditional chambers. The same goes for solicitors – do you join a traditional
partnership, do you join a firm that has a corporate structure (according to a
recent blog by Viv Williams, CEO of Legal Futures Associate 360 Legal Group, 25%
of the legal profession now trades as limited companies), do you join a firm
that is non-lawyer owned and if so, does the identity of such owner inform your
decision?
Choice can be a wonderful thing, but I do hope that today’s
aspiring lawyers do not find themselves too overwhelmed.
