Changes to way Solicitors are to qualify.

How does everyone feel in regards to the set changes by the SRA to take place in 2020?

It appears there will no longer be a need for the LLB/GDL/LPC. Now it seems that any degree will suffice, alongside the two years of qualifying legal work experience.

In my experience the LPC was a complete waste of time; I only did it as I did not have to pay. I do, however, believe that there should be some formal academic study of law before going on to qualify.

I am interested to hear your opinions.

How does everyone feel in regards to the set changes by the SRA to take place in 2020?

It appears there will no longer be a need for the LLB/GDL/LPC. Now it seems that any degree will suffice, alongside the two years of qualifying legal work experience.

In my experience the LPC was a complete waste of time; I only did it as I did not have to pay. I do, however, believe that there should be some formal academic study of law before going on to qualify.

I am interested to hear your opinions.

I havent looked into this. Can i just confirm are you saying in 2020 if you wanna be a solictor any degree will do, given you do 2 years of work experience?

If you want to be a Solicitor, should you not be looking into this? I assume you keep up with 'legal news'?

I completely agree.

I also think it doesn't make sense to be assessed by work experience alone - for example, if the firm you are at is not training you and you have no idea what to do, but they say you are qualified, there is no incentive to complain because you want to qualify. How is this going to be regulated?

Also, with the new exams, places like ULaw and BPP are obviously going to start running prep classes for that, and if firms don't have to sponsor you any longer, it is going to become so that only people who can self-fund are lawyers.

I honestly don't understand what any benefit with the new procedure will be or what the problem with the current way is...

Two separate exams determine whether qualify or not - work experience alone does not qualify you.

It is meant to be much cheaper than the current route, and I have no idea if firms will continue to sponsor trainees. I'd imagine they would.

I completely agree.

I also think it doesn't make sense to be assessed by work experience alone - for example, if the firm you are at is not training you and you have no idea what to do, but they say you are qualified, there is no incentive to complain because you want to qualify. How is this going to be regulated?

Also, with the new exams, places like ULaw and BPP are obviously going to start running prep classes for that, and if firms don't have to sponsor you any longer, it is going to become so that only people who can self-fund are lawyers.

I honestly don't understand what any benefit with the new procedure will be or what the problem with the current way is...

I know there are exams, but the work experience would be a large component of the qualification, no? If they get you to do paper work for two years that should not go towards qualifying you...

I am not sure why firms would stop supporting students financially from completing SQE2, given you could have already started working at the firm as a trainee when you take it. The benefit is likely that under the current system, if you are self-funding the LPC, you're going to get it for no less than 10k. Under the new system, you could theoretically self-teach from books found in your local library. It should be less expensive and I hope it will open up the legal profession a whole lot more, and see little reason for saying it will close the profession up to a wealthy few.

I don't understand the point you're making about people being assessed by "work experience alone". People will be assessed via the two SQE exams, to a universal level. That is, SQE1 (currently LLB/GDL with subjective marking in between, by uni and module leaders) will be one test everyone will sit to one marking scheme.* At current, once you pass the LPC (or SQE2), there is little assessment of your training beyond your having done it and firms' being content that you are ready to be considered qualified. Under the current system, it is still left to the firms to decide when you're ready.

*The theory is also that they will make the SQE2 harder than the current LPC, which is wildly regarded as a year you can piss about in. Maybe you could make the argument about 1, for students coming from less rigorous unis. Conversely, less rigorous unis are usually practice-facing and maybe them lot will have an easier time answering quite practical legal questions of 1.

I believe it does qualify as a major component, especially since they highlight that you should sit it during stage 1 and aim to complete it after stage 2. But on the bright side, it means you don't really need to find a training contract because it can be any form of legal work experience as long as it's under 4 different companies in the space of 2 years.

I read that you can do work experience at multiple firms, meaning that it would be very different from the current two year training contract.

At least with a training contract you have security and are getting paid for two years, with a very good chance of getting a job on qualification. The new route doesn't seem to offer that security, meaning you could spend two years doing various pieces or work experience and have no job to go to at the end... I'm just not sure what the argument against training contracts is? Is it just that you get a wider range of experience? I just feel like at least if it is all at one place you know that there will be no gaps in your knowledge as it is all provided in a measured way.

If you want to be a Solicitor, should you not be looking into this? I assume you keep up with 'legal news'?

Well, under the current system trainees can be seconded. There are other ways where de facto multiple firms can be involved in the training. It is not a world of difference, only in emphasis. That is, the new system might emphasise a trainee moving about a bit under shorter contract lengths (available for extension should the trainee show promise).

Even if several firms are involved, it is not that much different in assessment. That is, it is to the discretion of the firm(s) to decide when the trainee is done and up to the firms to prepare them for practice. Do you think that a leading US firm's trainee is going to be to the same level as a high street firm's trainee? No, they can train the trainee in different ways. Probably actually both hands-on from the off, relative to the large regional or MC/SC, but the level of competence will undoubtedly be different.

True. I more was referring to the issue of sponsorship - how would it work if no one firm is solely responsible for you and feels they are investing in you are as future lawyer at their firm?

There are more interesting ways to spend your evenings.

Like posting on here....

Well, yes. On here everyone else reads the legal news and summarises it for you; you can then go about preparing for marathons, teaching yourself Arabic, reading all of Dickens again. No need to read tedious legal news.