The Student Room Group

LPC with a 2:2

I'm unsure whether to pursue to the LPC.

I am determined, and I will work to achieve the best grades I can.

I'm tempted by BPP's offer. They also promise to provide a course on them in the event of failing to obtain a training contract.

http://law.bppeloqua.com/law-lpc-career-guarantee

However, I want the input of fellow posters, because I understand that pursuing a TC with a 2:2 may be an unrealistic prospect.

Secondly, I'm wondering whether the University of Law has more clout, as I know more people who've done the LPC there.

Thank you for reading this.

Scroll to see replies

Hi

I think there are firms that will accept a 2.2, but I don't think there are all that many. It does seem, unfortunately, that a 2.1 is the thing.

I am sure that there are people who will say that if you want to make it, you can, but it will be a slog. Possibly you could paralegal and then persuade someone to give you a TC if you were pretty flexible about who you worked for.

Have you considered ILEX? If you are interested in this, check out the threads on trainee solicitor as they are always posting about ILEX.

I like the BPP deal you have found! It's quite an impressive offer, I think.

The only thing I know about BPP v CoL is that BPP tends to be very city-oriented but I am sure they are both very similar in terms of rep.

Lots of luck in what you decide to do
Reply 2
It's not impossible to get a TC with a 2:2 - it's just much harder. Most city firms have a minimum of 2:1 or above.

So it depends what sort of person you are. If you are a likeable person then maybe it would be better for you to just get any old job in a law firm. Show them you're a hard worker, and see if they'll offer a TC. Then you can do the LPC OR you could do the LPC on the weekend whilst working. This is risky but if you pick the right firm and you work hard then I know a lot of students who have been given a TC.

My advice to anybody is try not to do the LPC without a TC in place unless you have the money to waste. From my class v.few got a TC whilst doing the LPC (in fact it was just one!).

P.S if you are worrying about not passing the LPC because you have a 2:2 - DON'T WORRY, as long as you keep on top of the paperwork then it is passable.
Original post by UnderPost
I

My advice to anybody is try not to do the LPC without a TC in place unless you have the money to waste. From my class v.few got a TC whilst doing the LPC (in fact it was just one!).


.


Would you mind saying which provider you studied at?

I don't think it is fair to say doing the LPC without a TC is a waste of money. For students who are aiming at the kind of law firm who do not fund GDL and LPC, then surely this is one of the ways forward, although I agree it does not make sense if you are aiming at the city firms.

Also, I do hear from actual solicitors that some firms do not like to accept trainees until they have the LPC under their belt.
Reply 4
Original post by UncertainProspec
I'm unsure whether to pursue to the LPC.

I am determined, and I will work to achieve the best grades I can.

I'm tempted by BPP's offer. They also promise to provide a course on them in the event of failing to obtain a training contract.

http://law.bppeloqua.com/law-lpc-career-guarantee

However, I want the input of fellow posters, because I understand that pursuing a TC with a 2:2 may be an unrealistic prospect.

Secondly, I'm wondering whether the University of Law has more clout, as I know more people who've done the LPC there.

Thank you for reading this.


I don't mean to sounds harsh, but please do not do the LPC. Majority of law firms offering TCs want 2.1 as bare minimum. Even those with 2.1 overall, but majority 2.2 modules get rejected as most law firms want breakdown of module results. I have recently found out about ILEX route which allowed graduates to carry out alternative way of qualifying as a solicitor. I personally do not know much about it but I have heard so many people regretting self-funding LPC and then not securing a TC. You are not allowed to enrol on ILEX if you've got LPC as well so I suggest you looked into more options before making such a big financial commitment.

Good luck
Hello,

We saw your message and would love to chat to you about our LPC, from September you can choose to get an MA in Business, or an LLM with your LPC, depending on which career route you want to go down will depend on what’s right for you.

One piece of advice we would give, is that it’s really important that you boost your CV with as much legal work experience as possible, Pro Bono will be great, but anything additional you can get over the summer will also be of benefit.

If you’d like, we’d be more than happy to arrange for you to have a chat with a tutor or even some existing students, many of our students start their LPC without training contracts but pick one up during their programme, (52% of LPC students got training contracts last year after starting with us)

If you’d like to discuss anything in more detail we’d be more than happy to chat to you, you can give our admissions team a call on 0845 0775566

Thanks.
Reply 6
I see no reason why you can't in the end qualify as a solicitor, however I believe doing the LPC at this stage would be a waste of money. If I was you I would do:

Method A
1) CILEX graduate fast track diploma
2) Gain 3 years work experience to become a fellow - if you have to work for free
3) Once you are a fellow you can then do the LPC and bypass the training contract route.
4) pass the LPC and you are a qualified solicitor.

Forget the LPC at this stage, I don't think you will get in. Just do the above steps in that order and you are there. It only works out an extra year, which in the context of things is nothing.

It shocks me why people even bother with the stupid training contract thing.

If you don't want to do the above you can do the following:

Method B
1) Take and Pass the New York Bar exam and qualify as a solicitor in the USA
2) Come back here and do a conversion course
3) bang you are a qualified solicitor


Again why people do the training contract is beyond me. I have a 2.1 degree / GDL and masters yet I would not even contemplate going the training contract route. Too much competition for the same result as method A or B.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 7
Original post by daviezee
I see no reason why you can't in the end qualify as a solicitor, however I believe doing the LPC at this stage would be a waste of money. If I was you I would do:

Method A
1) CILEX graduate fast track diploma
2) Gain 3 years work experience to become a fellow - if you have to work for free
3) Once you are a fellow you can then do the LPC and bypass the training contract route.
4) pass the LPC and you are a qualified solicitor.

Forget the LPC at this stage, I don't think you will get in. Just do the above steps in that order and you are there. It only works out an extra year, which in the context of things is nothing.

It shocks me why people even bother with the stupid training contract thing.

If you don't want to do the above you can do the following:

Method B
1) Take and Pass the New York Bar exam and qualify as a solicitor in the USA
2) Come back here and do a conversion course
3) bang you are a qualified solicitor


Again why people do the training contract is beyond me. I have a 2.1 degree / GDL and masters yet I would not even contemplate going the training contract route. Too much competition for the same result as method A or B.


The TC route is nice and convenient because it's the shorter of the routes (I think you have to be 25 to become a CILEx Fellow?), so I'd still argue that it's worth a go because, in second year law anyway, you've got nothing to lose - I appreciate that it's probably more stressful as a non-law finalist to try and make applications and complete your studies. I wouldn't discourage people from trying for TCs as long as they're realistic, although your two methods were my Plan B and Plan C when I started applying.

In terms of Method 2, you probably know, but I believe you can work in the US on English law for two years (having passed the Bar) and then just take conversion exams to avoid the need for a TC/pupillage altogether. The advantage of this version of Method 2 is that you don't have to be 25 (as you would for CILEx), and you can work on English law at any level, i.e. even as a supervised "paralegal".
Reply 8
Original post by Tortious
The TC route is nice and convenient because it's the shorter of the routes (I think you have to be 25 to become a CILEx Fellow?), so I'd still argue that it's worth a go because, in second year law anyway, you've got nothing to lose - I appreciate that it's probably more stressful as a non-law finalist to try and make applications and complete your studies. I wouldn't discourage people from trying for TCs as long as they're realistic, although your two methods were my Plan B and Plan C when I started applying.

In terms of Method 2, you probably know, but I believe you can work in the US on English law for two years (having passed the Bar) and then just take conversion exams to avoid the need for a TC/pupillage altogether. The advantage of this version of Method 2 is that you don't have to be 25 (as you would for CILEx), and you can work on English law at any level, i.e. even as a supervised "paralegal".


you seem to be well informed on method B so perhaps you could tell me more about it, I have never heard of this route before and it seriously interests me. Will I be dual qualified ...im guessing ill need a JD ?? can you tell me the ins and outs of the process or give me a sight that explains this ...i would be really grateful
Reply 9
Original post by woody-wood
you seem to be well informed on method B so perhaps you could tell me more about it, I have never heard of this route before and it seriously interests me. Will I be dual qualified ...im guessing ill need a JD ?? can you tell me the ins and outs of the process or give me a sight that explains this ...i would be really grateful


I never seriously looked into it (I was still applying for TCs at the time), but I don't think you need a JD. From what I gather the only reason that this route is possible is because certain states - of which NY is one - have law which is sufficiently similar to English law that there's some kind of "reciprocal arrangement".

As I understand it, all you need to do is study for the NY Bar (and there are numerous course providers out there who offer it), and fly over there to sit the four days of exams. This will qualify you as an American attorney in the State of New York, and then you do the "paralegalling" aspect as described in my earlier post.

This all assumes you can get the necessary permission to live and work in the US. :smile:
Original post by Tortious
I never seriously looked into it (I was still applying for TCs at the time), but I don't think you need a JD. From what I gather the only reason that this route is possible is because certain states - of which NY is one - have law which is sufficiently similar to English law that there's some kind of "reciprocal arrangement".

As I understand it, all you need to do is study for the NY Bar (and there are numerous course providers out there who offer it), and fly over there to sit the four days of exams. This will qualify you as an American attorney in the State of New York, and then you do the "paralegalling" aspect as described in my earlier post.

This all assumes you can get the necessary permission to live and work in the US. :smile:


Do you know any people to contact ? Perhaps the BPP course providers may have some advice ?
Ive had a quick peruse and you maybe need an american LLM to replace the JD :s-smilie: ??? also paralegalling ? so you will have to paralegal to start off with, I'm sorry about the questions but i genuinely have hoped a route like this existed where i could dual qualify without doing a JD so this is seriously an option
Reply 11
Original post by woody-wood
Do you know any people to contact ? Perhaps the BPP course providers may have some advice ?
Ive had a quick peruse and you maybe need an american LLM to replace the JD :s-smilie: ??? also paralegalling ? so you will have to paralegal to start off with, I'm sorry about the questions but i genuinely have hoped a route like this existed where i could dual qualify without doing a JD so this is seriously an option


This summarises it quite nicely. I have no idea which provider is best for this kind of thing, although naturally BPP and UoL are well-established for the LPC, so they'd be the first places I'd look. Both have accounts on TSR, but it's probably best to email them directly since they don't always check TSR regularly. :smile:

EDIT: It seems that there's no longer a work experience requirement either; the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS) replaced the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test (QLTT) relatively recently, so it looks like I'm a little out of date. :p:
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Tortious
This summarises it quite nicely. I have no idea which provider is best for this kind of thing, although naturally BPP and UoL are well-established for the LPC, so they'd be the first places I'd look. Both have accounts on TSR, but it's probably best to email them directly since they don't always check TSR regularly. :smile:

EDIT: It seems that there's no longer a work experience requirement either; the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS) replaced the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test (QLTT) relatively recently, so it looks like I'm a little out of date. :p:


I think I love you
Reply 13
Original post by woody-wood
I think I love you


Gah, you've genuinely made my day. Have some warm fuzzies. :h:
Original post by Tortious
Gah, you've genuinely made my day. Have some warm fuzzies. :h:


What do you think the prospects would be of a qualified lawyer with no experience would be? Do you think they would be treated as NQ's or worse :s-smilie: ? Also do you think dual qualification is an asset or will it look like you couldn't get a TC ? just a few thoughts I've had over the process ?
Reply 15
Original post by woody-wood
What do you think the prospects would be of a qualified lawyer with no experience would be? Do you think they would be treated as NQ's or worse :s-smilie: ? Also do you think dual qualification is an asset or will it look like you couldn't get a TC ? just a few thoughts I've had over the process ?


I really can't comment definitively since I'm not in HR and I would guess that this route is relatively uncommon. On the one hand, I think it'd be worse than the "standard" NQ (e.g. TC candidate who wasn't kept on) because at least they'll have two years of hands-on experience under their belt, but on the other the fact that you've had the initiative to go off and find an alternative route might weigh in your favour on the "personality" front.

In order for dual qualification to be an asset, I think you'd have to be looking at a particular type of firm. I've got a TC and was/am looking at ways to make myself more attractive to increase the odds of being kept on, so I asked one of the associates at my firm whether NY qualification was an asset; she told me that it probably wasn't to a smaller, niche firm like I'll be at - although that doesn't mean that international firms wouldn't take it into consideration. (That said, the fact that you got a 2.2 is likely to be your main obstacle if you were applying to those firms.) As for whether it'd look like you couldn't get a TC, that's very possible since firms could work it out from the timeline on your CV, so you'd need a convincing reason for pursuing the NY Bar route.

In theory, it's possible for you to set up your own practice, which would be very much a last resort if nobody would take you on. However, I think you need a certain number of years post qualification for this to be possible (there's not much info on the web since the Law Society produces a £55 book on the topic).

As you can probably tell, I'm not really sure what to suggest if you're starting with a 2.2. Sorry. :dontknow:
Reply 16
Original post by Tortious


In theory, it's possible for you to set up your own practice, which would be very much a last resort if nobody would take you on. However, I think you need a certain number of years post qualification for this to be possible (there's not much info on the web since the Law Society produces a £55 book on the topic).

As you can probably tell, I'm not really sure what to suggest if you're starting with a 2.2. Sorry. :dontknow:


3 years PQE IIRC
Original post by Tortious
I really can't comment definitively since I'm not in HR and I would guess that this route is relatively uncommon. On the one hand, I think it'd be worse than the "standard" NQ (e.g. TC candidate who wasn't kept on) because at least they'll have two years of hands-on experience under their belt, but on the other the fact that you've had the initiative to go off and find an alternative route might weigh in your favour on the "personality" front.

In order for dual qualification to be an asset, I think you'd have to be looking at a particular type of firm. I've got a TC and was/am looking at ways to make myself more attractive to increase the odds of being kept on, so I asked one of the associates at my firm whether NY qualification was an asset; she told me that it probably wasn't to a smaller, niche firm like I'll be at - although that doesn't mean that international firms wouldn't take it into consideration. (That said, the fact that you got a 2.2 is likely to be your main obstacle if you were applying to those firms.) As for whether it'd look like you couldn't get a TC, that's very possible since firms could work it out from the timeline on your CV, so you'd need a convincing reason for pursuing the NY Bar route.

In theory, it's possible for you to set up your own practice, which would be very much a last resort if nobody would take you on. However, I think you need a certain number of years post qualification for this to be possible (there's not much info on the web since the Law Society produces a £55 book on the topic).

As you can probably tell, I'm not really sure what to suggest if you're starting with a 2.2. Sorry. :dontknow:


Thanks, it's really kind of you to answer in such detail! My personal situation is different to the OP and I'm actually a 3rd year LLB, i'm genuinely just looking at ways to qualify, I like the route because it lands me directly into being the type of lawyer that I want to be, it is also technically a lot cheaper if you haven't secured a funded TC so I think this may be my route instead of self funding the LPC. It works out a bit less to become dual qualified than to just do the LPC.
Over the next few days I'm going to call BPP, some law firms to see what they are like towards the route and also get in contact with NY Bar assoc as some english degrees may not have the content required to count, apparently they mainly only take Oxbridge & UoL top three Law degrees... although at the moment this is hearsay
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 18
Original post by woody-wood
What do you think the prospects would be of a qualified lawyer with no experience would be? Do you think they would be treated as NQ's or worse :s-smilie: ? Also do you think dual qualification is an asset or will it look like you couldn't get a TC ? just a few thoughts I've had over the process ?



To be fair I don't know why people should be so hung up on having to be employed. After 3 years you can simply set up your own practice and operate out of your garage with a laptop. For those 3 years work for free if you have to and support yourself with a job at Tesco in the evening.

I understand it may not be easy to work for yourself in any business, however as a mature student I have always been self employed and never been frightened to have a go at a range of businesses. If you have a dream go for it.
Reply 19
For myself I have decided to go the legal executive path. I am just about to start the graduate fast track and should be a graduate member within 6 months if all goes well. I have also been in contact with a local solicitors practice and offered my services to them almost free for the next 3 years. After this I can do the LPC and will be a qualified solicitor.

After all this I may not even bother qualifying as a solicitor if CILEX get their way with independent practice rights. As you may or may not know their application is currently being considered by the legal services board. If this is accepted then the practical distinction between a solicitor and legal executive will be minimal.

Again I see no reason why anyone would battle and compete for stupid training contracts. I am 33 years of age, have a track record of running successful businesses, have a 2.1 degree, GDL and masters yet I would not dream of joining the rat race. Unless you are 100% sure of obtaining a training contract within a year, you may as well look at CILEX or New York Bar since it will not work out any longer.
(edited 10 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest