CitySolicitor


authorised by the FCA by 22 July 2014 or cease business until they are so authorised.


The Committee has written to the FCA and HMT to express its concern about the announcement by the FCA that firms which need authorisation under the AIFMD will need to be authorised by the FCA by 22 July 2014 or cease business until they are so authorised. The Committee asked the FCA to reconsider its position in light of the views taken by other Member States and the wording of the Directive.


Margaret Chamberlain, Chairman, Travers Smith LLP


Training Committee


Following on from the publication of the report by Legal Education & Training Review (“LETR”) in the Summer, the key stakeholders are beginning to take action.


First of all, the Legal Services Board has launched a consultation titled “Increasing flexibility in legal education and training” with a deadline for responses of 11 December 2013 (the link to which is http://www. legalservicesboard.org.uk/what_we_ do/consultations/open/pdf/20130918_ consultation_paper_on_guidance_ for_education_and_training_FINAL_ for_publication.pdf)


The Training Committee will be preparing a response to this Consultation on behalf of the CLLS and any views on the points raised in the Consultation should be sent to Tony King (tony. king@cliffordchance.com).


In addition, the SRA published on 16 October a policy document titled “Training for tomorrow – Ensuring the lawyers of today have the skills for tomorrow” (the link to which is http:// www.sra.org.uk/sra/policy/training-for- tomorrow/resources/policy-statement. page).


With the latter, the SRA is giving more details on its programme of reform which is intended to address a number of issues, including:


• the competence necessary for qualification and practice as a solicitor; and how best to ensure this has been properly demonstrated


• how to assure continuing competence, including Continuing Professional Development


6 • City Solicitor • Issue 83


• enabling greater flexibility in the delivery of education and training by avoiding unnecessary regulatory restrictions


• how to improve access, equality of opportunity and diversity


• achieving the right balance of responsibilities between the regulators, education providers, law firms and legal professionals.


The Training Committee has already flagged its initial views on the Report (which will be refined over the coming months) to the SRA with a view to helping to shape the SRA’s programme of reform.


To summarise those views, first the Committee considers that most of the elements of the Report’s recommendations deserve support in principle. However, much will depend on the detail of how the SRA propose to implement each of the Recommendations.


Looking at the key stages in the training continuum in turn, the Committee has pressed the SRA to address the following issues:


1. The Qualifying Law Degree (“QLD”) and Graduate Diploma in Law (“GDL”) While it is understandable why the Report took a cautious line with regard to possible changes to the QLD (and, in turn, the GDL), the recommendation that “values” should play a central role in any training structure for the legal services sector is to be welcomed. (The Committee has taken this to mean that the inclusion in the QLD of “ethics” teaching in some form which the Committee has long advocated will be given due consideration.) However, the Committee has reiterated points made in its submissions in response to the papers issued as part of the Review that consideration be given to including the law of organisations in the Joint Statement specifying the required elements of any QLD.


Any change to the Joint Statement can have an impact on institutions offering QLDs and, in particular, the Committee would not advocate any change to the Joint Statement which led to the overloading of the GDL. The Committee supports consideration being given to an expanded GDL which ran for longer than a standard academic year (as is currently the case) but would not want it to be extended


beyond 12 months in duration.


2. The Legal Practice Course (“LPC”) The Committee welcomes the fact that the Report recommended limited change to the LPC. The current structure gives sufficient flexibility to meet the varied needs of both the students and their eventual employers.


Following on from the point in para 1. above relating to the compulsory elements of the QLD, were the law of organisations to be added to the list of compulsory subjects, this might reduce to some extent the time which needs to be spent teaching company law in the compulsory subjects of the LPC. That would give the teaching institutions more time to help students prepare for the transition from academic work into practice.


3. The Training Contract The Committee supports the Report’s recommendation that some form of work-based experience should remain part of the training continuum and an outcomes-based assessment of the readiness of trainees to complete their training has merit. If an outcomes approach is applied strictly (as the Report envisages), the length of traineeships could vary considerably. That may well be legitimate given the nature of individual trainees’ experiences and capabilities. However, market forces may well drive traineeships to a common length (at least in some parts of the legal services sector) whatever the SRA’s stance on this may be.


The current two year period has served the profession well in the past. It has met the business and development needs of both CLLS member firms and of their trainees, giving time for the trainees to gain a broad spread of experience across a number of practice areas. Therefore, it should not be discarded lightly even if an outcomes-based approach to qualification might suggest a shorter minimum period. Were a shorter minimum period (of, say, 16 or 18 months) be thought to work just as effectively, the consequences (both developmental and logistical) of such a change would need to be analysed carefully.


The Committee was disappointed that the Report did not address the issue of the Professional Skills Course which is in urgent need of review. The “one size fits all” elements of the PSC do not necessarily benefit the range of future


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12