Can you become a lawyer without going to university?

Legal apprenticeships and legal training more generally are going under a massive review. The current apprenticeship model is ok, but the new "trailblazer" apprenticeships will blur the lines between non-grad and grad routes further.

But it's clear from the review that any decisions won't be made until at least 2017 and then if anything is agreed there will be transition phases.

Until then I think the more "traditional" uni route will be seen as a main recruitment process for most firms.

I personally think apprenticeships are a great idea and it would be great to see a qualitative route/model similar to that seen prior to the 1990s. I don't think it will happen/change until sometime after 2020 though.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Only people who take Law at University as an undergraduate degree should be allowed to practise Law.

The GDL conversion course should be stopped as well. People can take subjects that are much easier than Law such as Sociology, get the minimum 2:1, do the GDL and then they can become lawyers after the vocational course. Outrageous.

Doing a law degree doesn't entitle you to a career in law. I find it funny how law students think their course is intellectually superior or more difficult than others.

Going by your logic then LLB law courses should also be limited in number.

Posted from TSR Mobile

It is somewhat contradictory to suggest that law is a hard subject, but then say that people can simply 'do the GDL' as if it's an easy step. The GDL is an intense post graduate course that demands far more from students than any individual year of an undergraduate law degree does.

But the major problem with your argument here is that studying law as an academic subject bears very little if any resemblance to practising law. Your implication that law students should somehow have a level of entitlement based on the difficulty of law as a degree is, therefore, misguided. Coming out of your undergraduate degree with a good degree classification is used by many firms and chambers as a way of distinguishing candidates, but a correlation between academic success and excelling as a lawyer, whether solicitor or barrister, is never guaranteed.

It isn't offensive, it's just incredibly narrow minded.

The reality is that there would be a war for talent if the industry does what you suggest. Demand for competent, let alone excellent graduates, would exceed supply.

Things like subjects might be "harder" or easier. It could be argued a law degree with 4-8 hours of tuition a week is a lot easier than a science course where students are often doing more than 20 hours. Also, does someone who gets a first in Criminology have a higher level of intellect if they have a first compared to a law graduate with a low 2.1? I would suspect so.

Thankfully most people within the industry don't hold the same view as you so fortunately what you are suggesting will never happen. Non-law graduates bring a lot to the table as a trainee, whether it be languages, research skills, economic or politics knowledge, scientific understanding (useful for IP law etc). These are just as practical as the academic legal subjects taught in an LLB (some might suggest even more practical).

The legal industry would be even less diverse and far more one dimensional if we only recruited law graduates. I am a strong supporter of making the legal profession more diverse and knocking down existing barriers, not creating more like the one you have suggested. That's why I am a strong supporter of the apprenticeship programme.

The irony is that the idea of the trail blazer programme would be that apprenticeships go up to a level 7 (which is the equivalent of a post-grad degree level), so the apprentices would complete the equivalent of a law degree and meet the requirements you have suggested (while working at the same time).


Posted from TSR Mobile

Competition is a good thing - it keeps the necessary standards high!

Posted from TSR Mobile

When I did my year 12 work experience at a law firm the partner I was working for actually said he preferred non-law graduates to law graduates

Out of interest, why would a law degree be considered more practical than an apprenticeship. An apprentice would have worked in a law firm for 5/6 years to become a lawyer whereas a graduate would have done 2 in their training contract. I understand the argument for being a judge or academic however in terms of working in a law firm your argument seems reversed...

High street firm?
My uncle is a commercial barrister and most people have Law degrees at his chamber. The ones that don't are Oxbridge graduates with exceptional ECs.

Too much competition means that it's more down to chance than anything else.

Also, too much competition means that a lot of lazy employers will favour Oxbridge because they know for sure that these graduates will be excellent whereas they won't be sure about other universities like Surrey as an example. It's easier to interview graduates from certain 'prestigious' universities. Less time consuming, less money and energy to do this.

If only Law graduates were allowed to become lawyers then maybe university reputation will matter less. It will give those who went to non target universities (but who are still excellent) a level playing field.



High street firm?
My uncle is a commercial barrister and most people have Law degrees at his chamber. The ones that don't are Oxbridge graduates with exceptional ECs.



You gain key skills such as researching skills, lots and lots of reading, analytical skills, self management... Etc.

A law degree can also improve your commercial awareness.

Since you will be studying many different areas of the Law, this can help make it easier for you when you later when you have to decide what you want to specialise in.

Studying Law gives students a deeper knowledge of Law than the GDL. Students aquire key skills that lawyers need in order to succeed - analytical, written and oral communication, problem solving skills... Etc etc.

Yes people who do the GDL can be very succesful lawyers, they can be better than people who do the LLB Law but I still think it is wrong that bright Law graduates are struggling to gain a training contract/puppilage because there is too much uneccessary competition.

x

They will be fine - they have only stated a fact.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I disagree. It is a disgusting idea.

Only people who take Law at University as an undergraduate degree should be allowed to practise Law.

The GDL conversion course should be stopped as well. People can take subjects that are much easier than Law such as Sociology, get the minimum 2:1, do the GDL and then they can become lawyers after the vocational course. Outrageous.

There are already too many people graduating Law with 2:1/1sts but apparently they have to compete with people who have degrees in ANYTHING ELSE, even if it is easier.

Now I hear that people don't even have to go to university. They might even get paid to do legal apprentices so even more competition.

If the competition was fair then that'd be one thing but people doing an academically invigorous subject such as Law will be competing with people doing apprentices and people with degrees like Psychology.