Plant hits out at City law firms over trainee recruitment

Print This Post

21 October 2013

Plant: extraordinary procedure

The ex-City lawyer chairman of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has questioned the recruitment methods of City law firms in making university students decide to become commercial lawyers so early on in their legal careers.

Charles Plant said “we have a system for recruitment to the legal profession that isn’t followed anywhere else in the world”.

Speaking at a forum on the Legal Education and Training Review (LETR) – organised by the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives – the former Herbert Smith Freehills partner said the profession had to ask itself serious questions about how early on some students have to decide their career path.

“Why do we have this extraordinary procedure where young people at the end of the second year of university have to decide whether to go to commercial law firms?” he demanded.

In the case of non-law graduates, he pointed out, they have to make this decision “before they even set foot in a law school”.

So long as this system exists, Mr Plant said, there needs to be a great deal of flexibility to allow lawyers to change career path. “Do they have the transferable skills to move from one branch to another?” he asked.

He also repeated his personal view that there should be common training of prospective solicitors and barristers.

More broadly, Mr Plant warned the audience of regulators, representative bodies, academics and other LETR stakeholders that the SRA will push its own plans to respond to the review – as outlined last week in a policy statement – to “the most ambitious timetable”. He said: “We think there’s a real, urgent need to get on now.”

Mr Plant and the chairs of the other two regulators that commissioned the LETR – Baroness Deech of the Bar Standards Board and Alan Kershaw of ILEX Professional Standards – all came out against the LETR recommendation to create a legal education council, favouring more informal collaboration instead. They were supported from the audience by Legal Services Board chief executive Chris Kenny.

The LETR said the council would provide a forum for the coordination of the continuing review of education and training, and serve as a data archive, careers advice shop, ‘legal education laboratory’ and clearing house, for example to advertise work experience.

However, the regulators expressed concern that it would simply divert resources and energy away from progressing with reform.

Professor Julian Webb – who led the LETR team – told the summit that he was worried that the prospective role of a council in “research and development, and ensuring we have the quality of information we need” would be lost as a result.

Mr Plant and Baroness Deech were also critical at the failure of university law schools to engage with the LETR. Mr Plant suggested that the more prestigious they were, the “more disinclined” they were as well to take part.

Baroness Deech said she had appealed to Oxford University – at which she taught for many years – to get involved in the LETR, “but they just won’t”. She continued: “It is time for our best universities to get stuck into this.”

Tags: , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Plant hits out at City law firms over trainee recruitment”

  1. It’s a great shame that the regulators are so against a Legal Education Council, I would strongly suspect it is because they don’t want to fund it. If only there was a large amount of money dedicated to legal education that could find this…. Oh wait a minute, didn’t the Legal Education Foundation receive circa £200 million from Private Equity for the sale of The College of Law? They’ve been remarkably quiet since, does anyone know what the money is being spent on, I recall the man that controls the purse strings not being fond of giving money out so maybe we’ll never know.

    Legal Ed in the UK needs something to spurn evolvement post LETR. The ideas amongst small groups are fractured and innovation somewhat stagnant.

    The US has some movements with great strength such as Reinvent Law and more importantly Law Without Walls (who’s pilot LWOWx looks very exciting)

    The UK could do with similar hub that promotes progressive legal education.

  2. Kaoticoddchild on October 21st, 2013 at 11:02 am
  3. Informal collaboration is all very well, but as the first comment notes there is a need for a group which can help make such things happen.

  4. Pete Smith on October 21st, 2013 at 12:26 pm

Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

How best to achieve independent regulation under the Legal Services Act?

Craig Wakeford LSB

Independent regulation gives confidence to consumers, providers, investors and society as a whole that legal services work in the public interest and support the rule of law. The Legal Services Act 2007 does not require all approved regulators to be structurally separate from representative bodies. Instead, the Legal Services Board is required by the Act to produce internal governance rules (IGR) which apply the principle of regulatory independence in legal service regulation. We are currently running a consultation on the IGR which continues until 9 February.

January 19th, 2018