The UK’s legal sector has a reputation for high standards, and yet unlike many of its international competitors there is no universal yardstick by which all solicitors can be compared.
The absence of such a qualification arguably disadvantages consumers of legal services, students from less privileged backgrounds and leaves employers in the dark and out of pocket when trying to recruit fairly.
This is the view of the Solicitors Regulation Authority; the regulatory body which is putting forward plans to address this problem.
The organisation is currently consulting on introducing a new assessment which all would-be solicitors would have to pass.
At the moment, there are around 2000 organisations that provide training and work placements and make judgements about whether someone is ready to qualify as a solicitor, but the SRA would like to see instead a common bar for all to clear.
The regulator’s Director of Education and Training, Julie Brannan, explains why she considers this change to be vital to maintain the industry’s reputation.
She says: “The problem we have is that we don’t think there is enough flexibility in the system and we don’t think there is enough consistency or comparability of standards. The current system delivers neither consistency nor flexibility, and we want to deliver both through introducing this new exam. We hope it will provide a mechanism for us to have both flexibility and consistency. That’s the great prize for us.
“Until 1993 there was a set exam that everybody had to do – it was called the Law Society Finals, but that all went. So, it is now the universities that assess through all these routes, and we have about 100 different universities who are involved with assessing students and we have concerns about whether they are setting the same standards.”
The new qualification would, she says, make things fairer for students, who are at the moment largely judged on the reputation of the institution they attend.
For Ms Brannan, placing all the responsibility for setting standards on the universities does not benefit either the students or the industry.
“They set different exams. Some say you can take your books in with you, some say you can’t and that makes a big difference. We know that on the legal practice course pass rates vary from somewhere between 30% and over 90%. Students really need to know that information, when they are choosing, but at the moment they don’t.
“The problem we have is that because the universities set their own exams and mark their own exams we worry that if we were to make the information public there could be a race to the top.”
Addressing the rising cost of gaining entry to the profession is also a priority, she adds, given the increasing financial burdens imposed on students.
“The legal practice course costs up to £15,000 and it was introduced before student fees. So, it was always expensive but for a long time it was the only bit that students had to fund themselves.
“Now they have to fund their undergraduate degree and although there is the student loan scheme, the LPC doesn’t qualify for student loan funding.
“So, you really have to have a spare £15,000, or you have to have a training contract with one of the big commercial firms and they pay the LPC fees, on which they get often get a discount.
“So, students who don’t have training contracts are subsidising those students who are at the most prestigious firms, many of whom have come from the top universities and are privately educated. They are not the group that needs support and they are being funded by the group that does need support. It is not a great picture.”
The impact the situation is having on both consumers and employers is equally concerning, Ms Brannan suggests.
Although it is hard to draw a direct connection between training and the standard of service, there is evidence that solicitors' standards sometimes fall short. For example, each year about 10% of law firms pay out on negligence claims brought against them.
In addition to the issue of standards, there is also confusion among the public, many of whom do not know how solicitors qualify, and assume that there is already a set exam.
There are problems for employers too, some of whom use A-levels as a comparative tool because it is the last time candidates were examined in line with national standards.
Explaining how the new qualification could benefit employers, Ms Brannan says they could “be sure that the people they are employing have met a minimum threshold standard. I think part of the problem for employers is that a lot of them say we require a minimum of a 2:1 or above, but that’s actually 70% of students who come through university so it’s not actually terribly discriminating.
“We know that law firms and employers are trying all sorts of different routes to make sure that they recruit fairly, and that they recruit the best people. Some of them are setting their own tests but that can be time-consuming and expensive. What we would hope is that this test will give employers the information that they need to drive those recruitment decisions.”
In looking to resolve these issues, the SRA is undertaking a thorough process of consultation, which will consider the views of the industry, universities and even schoolchildren who are considering a career in law.
It hopes that this robust approach will eventually win the attention and support of policy-makers.
Ms Brannan is optimistic that the work will be well received in Whitehall as she considers it to fit in well with the Government’s commitment to driving up standards across various related policy areas.
She concludes: “We see this as being on the same level as the work that is currently going on with the Justice Department and BIS on standards in higher education and also access and diversity. So, we are going in the exact same direction.
“We think that by introducing greater innovation, flexibility and liberalising how solicitors qualify that will increase access to legal services and that is part of that Government's growth agenda, which is very important."