Goodbye solicitors, hello ‘regulated legal advisors’: consumer panel seeks radical training reform

Reform: panel says training should include how to give advice to consumers

Lawyers’ legal education and training should be aimed at the specific activities they will be authorised to practise rather than at achieving a particular title, the Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP) has urged.

“Regulated legal advisors” should also undergo periodic revalidation to measure their continuing competence.

The suggestions, published today, are among a raft of radical proposals made in answer to the Legal Education and Training Review’s (LETR) recent call for evidence. The LSCP presents its ideas in what it calls “think-piece mode”, which addresses training and competence issues within the context of an “activity-based system of regulation”.

In the LSCP’s “vision”, approved regulators would authorise “regulated legal entities” who wished to provide reserved legal activities to consumers. These would need to demonstrate compliance against the outcome that their workforce is appropriately trained and supervised, and would be required to allocate specific responsibilities to “regulated legal advisors” as required by the approved regulators, relating either to practice areas or roles within entities.

These advisors would have to “demonstrate competence… by meeting authorisation requirements which would be separately granted and vary according to the mix of activities they wished to provide to consumers. These permissions would be identified on practising certificates”.

It continues: “Authorisation could involve no legal training requirements, general legal training requirements, or, for higher quality-risk activities, specialist legal training requirements.”

The LSCP recognises that the “logical consequence of our preferred direction of travel for the education and training review is that the professional titles lose meaning. The focus of regulation is on entities and activities, rather than the individual lawyer. Authorisation would no longer be automatically linked to a right to practise each of the reserved activities”.

The starting point of the LSCP’s submission is that consumers are vulnerable to poor-quality legal advice and that the present education and training system is “inflexible, out-of-step with an increasingly integrated profession and is a poor fit with modern notions of regulation”.

It calls for the LETR “to consider radical solutions rather than just tinker at the margins” because the context for the review is “a heady mix of historical legacy, current developments and likely future trends”. The viewpoint that the system is not broken and so does not need fixing “smacks of complacency”, it says.

The LSCP welcomes the Legal Services Board’s moves towards regulating lawyers at entity level and encouraging a shift to an “activity-based” approach, which varies regulation according to the risk associated with the area of law being practised or the role occupied within a firm.

Training should also relate to activities, it argues, although over-specialisation is to be avoided. A legal qualification that covers core legal subjects is needed but the GP-style model is unsuitable: “It is impossible for a single qualification to prepare an individual for the sheer diversity of roles they might, perhaps much later, come to occupy.”

Entry to legal markets should be allowed on the basis that “anyone who can demonstrate their competence to practise should be permitted to provide legal services to consumers under appropriate supervision”.

The LSCP urges that the education and training system should support diversity within the profession not just in order that the workforce reflects the population but because it “is also more likely to understand and respond to the diverse needs of clients”. Activity-based authorisation should improve diversity, for instance by supporting “more non-degree entry routes”.

Existing hours-based continuing professional development (CPD) schemes are “widely discredited” and their failings “may point to underlying cultural problems”, the panel says. It hopes the LETR will provide evidence for a better approach to CPD and predicts the “key is likely to be creating the right culture – away from anti-avoidance towards pride in performance”.

Meanwhile, periodic revalidation similar to that undertaken by doctors is necessary to complement CPD, at least in “higher quality-risk areas”, argues the LSCP. Such a review of competence would benefit consumers and enable regulators to pre-empt problems.

The LSCP criticises regulators for failing to measure the quality of legal advice, causing what it describes as “a massive hole in the evidence base”. When studies have been done of the quality of lawyers’ work, the findings have been poor, it points out.

Training courses for lawyers should include subjects such as “dealing with consumers in an advice setting, consumer diversity and professional ethics”. But at the same time, training should not go “beyond what is necessary to certify quality” or be so burdensome as to create “unnecessary entry barriers”, the panel cautions.



    Readers Comments

  • Bill Willcocks says:

    What this does not seem to address is that to qualify as a solicitor requires a broad training. That training allows a solicitor to identify early on in a particular client matter what expertise is needed, even if the individual solicitor cannot provide the expertise themself. The risk associated with a training scheme which focuses on only one area of the law is that problems will either be overlooked through inexperience or lack of expertise; or clients will end up trawling round “regulated legal advisors” trying to find proper advice.
    And the suggestion doesn’t even start to address the fact that for most people starting out in their career they do not really know what area they want to specialise in. Some say that even the current system encourages specialisation too early, but this proposal could make that even more of a problem unless very carefully managed.

  • Rod Fisher says:

    Specialisation and authorisation by specific legal activity is long overdue.

    There are far too many ‘legal GP’s’ in current practice and specialisation can only improve the quality of advice provided and reduce mistakes by lesser qualified practitioners.

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Training the next generation lawyer

Since I completed my training and qualified over 10 years ago, a lot has changed. It’s. therefore imperative that law firms adapt and progress their approach to training and recruitment.

Reshaping workplace culture in law firms

The legal industry is at a critical point as concerns about “toxic law firm culture” reach an all-time high. The profession often prioritises performance at the cost of their wellbeing.

Will solicitors finally be fans of transparency now?

Since the introduction of the SRA’s transparency rules in December 2018, I have been an advocate for law firms going further then the regulatory essentials.

Loading animation