It is unclear how paralegal 'shortcut' will work

New guidance issued
by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) will allow paralegals
who have passed a legal
practice course (LPC) to
qualify as solicitors without having to complete a formal
training contract.

A spokesperson for the Law Society, however, has said that the SRA did not “appear to have consulted about this change of approach [in training]. It remains unclear about exactly how it
will work”.

Information on equivalent means to the profession was last updated on the SRA website on 30 July 2014. It says that the equivalent means prescription “allows [the SRA] to recognise that the knowledge and skills outcomes (and the standard at which they must be acquired) may have been achieved by an individual through other assessed learning and work based learning. Where this is the case, we may grant exemption from all or part of the academic
or vocational stages.”

The Law Society commented that although the change was part of the SRA’s Training for Tomorrow regulatory reform, it has yet to consult stakeholders on any specified details.

Mark Stobbs, director of legal policy at the Law Society, said: “We support flexible routes to qualification. But we question whether many paralegals will be able to satisfy the new requirements. It is important the SRA consults properly on any significant changes to ensure that standards are maintained.”

An old idea

The SRA stressed, however, that this is not an entirely new policy. A spokesperson for the regulator explained: “What we want to get across is that it is not a new ability, it’s just the way in which we consider people’s applications which is new.”

The SRA said: “We have retained the requirement for training in terms of content, breadth, level, supervision, but we no longer require it to be undertaken in terms of an SRA training contract. This has been replaced by a ‘period of recognised training (PRT)’.”

The regulator added: “Technically, therefore, if a paralegal can prove to us that their learned experiences in their role are equivalent to what we require from a formal period of recognised training, we will acknowledge this.

“The most a trainee could
claim for recognising previous experience, in normal situations, was six months. This is the same under the new regulations. The claims were made to the training provider. This is still the case.”

The Chartered Institute of
Legal Executives (CILEx), which is launching an enquiry into the role of paralegals in the autumn, is confident that the regulatory change does not infringe on their plans or investigation. Vicky Purtill, head of qualifications at CILEx, commented: “The paralegal enquiry is set to output market scenarios from 2020. The changes in legal education and training will play a key role in defining these scenarios, along with research into the industry
as a whole.”

Purtill added: “Any changes made to education and training regulations that are designed to focus on the outcomes and reduce prescriptive requirements are likely to increase diversity within the profession.”

She concluded that if the appropriate quality assurance mechanisms were put in place, to ensure those applying for the alternative admission were met, then the move should be perceived as a positive step.

Practice not theory

Some members of the paralegal community, however, remain unconvinced. Philip Nam is a fellow of the Institute of Paralegals and director of freelance paralegal practice, White Collar.

“This is, of course, news that many paralegals and those who failed to get into university, like myself, have been waiting for. However, it is not as clear cut as ‘if you’re a paralegal you can become a solicitor,’” Nam said.

When asked if the industry was witnessing the death of the training contract (the Costs Committee of the Civil Justice Council recently approved to allow chartered legal executives to recover costs at the same level as solicitors at Grade A parity) Nam suggested that it was, in its current form.

“However, applicants will still be required to train in the various areas of law. No solicitor can be a specialist in one area. It’s just not possible. There will be some period of training but perhaps not as long as the current regime, especially following the removal of CPD requirements.”

Head of policy at the Institute of Paralegals, James O’Connell, said the change demonstrated a move “away from obsession with process towards a more logical and fairer focus on outcomes”.

Conversely, O’Connell disputed that the change would work in practice: “Will it make any difference? Not much, no. Not in the short term anyway. Paralegals specialise. It is difficult therefore to see how paralegals will be able to get the variety of experience necessary to avoid a training contract. Most will have to do five to ten different jobs to replicate a training contract. Who are these serial employers that will hire them, train them, then say goodbye? Which employers will facilitate the departure of trained staff by helping to record and confirm work done?”

O’Connell also speculated that the shift in training would “shake-up” the LLB and LPC markets: “Neither courses are attractive and so alternatives
will arise.”

LPC providers are often the target of much criticism in the industry with questions raised as to whether the post graduate diploma, which has an average price tag of £10,000, affords sufficient vocational training. For the moment, however, they and their corporate partnership with City firms appear to have been left unscathed by the change.

A positive step

There are those, however, that believe change is for the better. Tamasin Dorosti, a paralegal and member of the Junior Lawyers Division (JLD) Executive Committee, advised that the junior end of the Law Society believed in the removal of restrictions on training and would present a huge success for its membership: a large number
of which are made up of LPC graduates struggling to obtain training contracts.

“Many of our members have spent years working in legal practices carrying out much of the same work as a trainee without receiving any formal recognition for this, or working on the promise of a training contract which never materialises,” Dorosti said.

The JLD, Dorosti commented, does nevertheless share the same concerns as the Law Society and CILEx on maintaining standards within the profession.

“While the JLD believes this is a development long overdue for the profession, it is still minded to protect and preserve the quality of the profession and those who qualify into it.”

Dorosti added: “The JLD will start to monitor this change and in future start work on surveys and consultations with its membership to see the full effects. The JLD supports the Law Society in its statement that the SRA must consult properly on any significant changes to ensure that standards are maintained.” SJ

A solicitor must be well-rounded Bally Atwal is a partner and training principal of Smith Partnership “As a firm generally we wouldn’t support such an application, subject to certain exceptions, only because we would want to ensure that the candidate had a greater exposure to the various disciplines that the firm operated under, and the only way we could do that would be to ensure that they went through four seats during their training, with a mixture of commercial and private client work. “The ultimate aim here is to produce well-rounded solicitors and to produce candidates who can essentially hit the ground running once they’ve qualified. “The problem is that most of [a paralegal’s] experience will be gained in one department. For example, they may have only developed experience in wills and probate or commercial property. To go on to then making an application under the scheme for exemption, they may struggle because the majority of their experience will have been gained in one discipline and without any previous legal qualifications. “I have reservation about this alternative route to the profession. That’s not to say it won’t be suitable in certain cases where it’s a mature candidate who has been with a firm and has had exposure to a number of disciplines. In those cases you can see the logic behind it because they’ve amassed a considerable amount of experience; far more than what they may have gained sat behind a desk at a university. “It’s also about bringing people into the profession and making sure there is the work there for them. My concern is that it will just increase the number of individuals trying to gain access to the profession but with no steps being taken to ensure that there are sufficient opportunities out there for them.”

Laura Clenshaw is junior writer for SJ

laura.clenshaw@solicitorsjournal.co.uk