Autumn2013


entrants to the profession. Therefore, greater flexibility in the training required at this level is needed.


The Committee supports the concept of there being a clear measure of competence needed at the point of qualification to ensure that standards are maintained (the first bullet in the outline of the SRA’s programme of reform above). However, how that competence will be specified given the breadth of practice covered by the profession is unclear.


Even if “competence” can be adequately determined, the measurement of it also poses problems. Will there be some form of formal assessment? If so, that carries with it the risk of a “training industry” growing up to help prepare trainees go through that assessment. There would inevitably be costs associated with such a structure which may have an adverse impact on access and diversity.


There must be some system for ensuring a degree of consistency across the assessment of competence of would-be entrants to the profession and the use of portfolios may be the way forward. That could keep the costs of the assessment of competence to a manageable level but that carries with it potential problems of maintaining confidentiality. The obvious solution to this is that organisations which satisfied some suitable form of audit of their training and assessment processes should be allowed to assess the “competence” of their own trainees.


4. Continuing Professional Development The current Scheme is in need of an overhaul and the Committee will be active in contributing to the debate on the future “shape” of the scheme. The concept of “continuing competence” described in the LETR Report is an attractive one. The Committee supports a move to expand the list of activities which will go towards proving that a solicitor is achieving that objective.


Linking an individual solicitor’s “continuing competence” development plan to an organisation’s in-house appraisal process would avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and ensure that the solicitor’s developmental activities fit with the business needs of the organisation.


The Committee wants to avoid the “tick box” problems which the current


scheme poses. However, some guidance on an acceptable minimum in terms of both hours and core activities which go towards proving “continuing competence” may be the eventual outcome.


The Committee recognises that the Review may result in suggestions that solicitors be required to undergo some form of training in certain topics (such as ethics or management). An “indicative” approach (giving guidance on areas of coverage) rather than compulsion is the better way forward. However should compulsion apply to what are seen as key topics, flexibility must be allowed in terms of what needs to be covered as well as when and how it is covered.


5. Improving access, equality of opportunity and diversity The Committee and the wider CLLS is, of course, a strong supporter of initiatives to improve access to the profession on the understanding that standards are not compromised.


With this in mind and to pick up a particular issue, the Committee applauds the Report’s recommendation to widen access via a non-graduate route into the profession. Irrespective of whether the CLLS members would make heavy use of such a route, this will clearly open the way into the profession for entrants who, for whatever reason, do not want or are not able to follow the traditional path.


However, taking the legal apprenticeship model as an illustration, the Committee is concerned that such an innovation may lead to a “two tier” qualification. For that reason, the apprenticeship- type route must be seen to achieve standards exactly equivalent to those achieved via the traditional path. For this reason, the Committee welcomes the plans of some of the providers planning to participate in the apprenticeship initiative to create


structures which lead to apprentices acquiring degrees at the end of the process. With this in mind, the Society would favour the promotion of a “non- traditional university” route, rather than a non-graduate route.


On the issue of internships which is flagged in the Report, improving the provision of information about these opportunities is a sensible recommendation. However, the Committee would not support interference with CLLS member firms’ freedom to manage their own recruitment processes.


6. Achieving the right balance of responsibilities between the key stakeholders in the training continuum It is clearly essential that the structure of the training continuum ensures high standards of competence at each point on the continuum. Equally, there should not be onerous responsibilities placed on any one stakeholder (or role-holder such as the COLP) and the Committee will engage in the debate on ways of achieving that balance.


7. The Legal Education Council Finally the Report suggests the creation of this Council to continue the work begun in the Review though what it is intended to achieve and how it will be constituted is not yet entirely clear. From this flows an uncertainty over its cost.


To the extent the Council duplicates the work of the SRA (whether in relation to education and/or quality assurance), the Committee considers it would be more appropriate for the additional staff (assuming that would be necessary) to be part of the SRA rather than of a new and separate body.


Tony King, Chairman, Clifford Chance LLP


City Solicitor • Issue 82 • 7


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