Editor's blog | The predictable LETR paradox
There is a strange but perhaps predictable paradox at the heart of the Legal Education and Training Review. It took two years to produce, and 350 pages later comes up with a set of recommendations that everybody seemed to be expecting and few of which – if any – are in fact proposing any major changes to the current system.
Take the suggested scrapping of minimum CPD hours, which would be replaced by individual outcomes-focused development plans. It looks radical enough on paper but in practice most law firms already tailor professional development to their lawyers’ needs and they impose more than the required minimum hours. Even sole practitioners – often criticised for taking a casual approach to business and compliance – take this seriously, because their livelihood depends on it.
What’s more disappointing is what’s not being addressed. For instance, the dramatic rise in law graduates, and especially of law graduates burdened with debt and no real prospect of ever getting a training contract. SRA board chairman Charles Plant is probably one of a handful of people who doesn’t regard this as over-supply.
The former Herbert Smith partner cites from the report, saying that there will continue to be a need for solicitors as demand for legal work is expected to keep growing. The difference is that tomorrow’s legal services landscape will have paralegals delivering a lot more of the actual advice, with solicitors becoming supervisors and managers. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Not if professional standards are upheld and clients’ interests are adequately protected. Undoubtedly some solicitors are good business managers and enjoy it.
But ask law students why they read law, and the answer is usually that they want to become lawyers, not managers. Their aspirations may change as their careers develop but I don’t know any who set out to become managers. This fundamental change in the role of solicitors is not really reflected in the report.
The only nod in this direction is the long-overdue acknowledgment of paralegals as the engine room of the sector. Some have argued that there should be formal recognition of their role but, to their disappointment, the report only recommends that paralegals should be adequately supervised and that some thought should be given to voluntary certification. This apparent cop out is in fact a positive development for paralegals. Compulsory accreditation could have unintended consequences at that end of the market.
Paralegal work provides a stepping stone for those who have missed out on education or failed to secure training contracts. The introduction of compulsory licensing could place further unnecessary obstacles in their way. On the other hand, there is nothing stopping the regulators from thinking about a scheme that would connect time as a paralegal with a qualification, as credit towards a training contract, for instance. Structuring this sort of alternative route is likely to remain a difficult question as long as qualification remains title-based, but it would be this journal’s recommendation to the regulators.