Monday 14 December 2015

The ‘Solicitor Super-Exam’ and Social Mobility

As part of an ongoing review of the education, training and qualification requirements for solicitors, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has recently opened a consultation on the introduction of what has been dubbed the ‘super-exam’ for solicitors – its real name is the rather more sober ‘Solicitors Qualifying Examination’, or SQE.

At present the proposals are nebulous and it is not exactly clear what the SRA is proposing, beyond the requirement for every would-be solicitor to pass the SQE. They have stated that it is likely that they will continue to require a period of pre-qualification workplace experience – currently called the ‘Period of Recognised Training’ but still known by everyone as a Training Contract – but have not specified the form that this might take, or its length. There is also considerable vagueness about the educational pathways leading up to the taking of the SQE – at present, a Qualifying Law Degree and then the LPC are mandatory courses – and it is suggested that the SRA might not require any particular qualifications or courses at all. This could, as some have pointed out, lead to people attempting the exam who have no formal training in law at all, or no degree, or both.

The SRA has stated that it believes the SQE will lead to a more diverse profession and that it will remove some of the barriers to entry for those from non-traditional backgrounds. It suggests that the cost of qualification (currently extremely high for those using the most common route to qualification, consisting of a undergraduate degree (perhaps £27,000 or more in student loans) a Graduate Diploma in Law if necessary, costing £10,000; and the LPC, which if not funded by a firm costs around £15,000 in London) will decrease if there is no longer a specified required training pathway, and that this will benefit less well-off would-be solicitors.

Conversely, the Law Society has hit back by asserting that the exam might damage social mobility and favour the wealthy. It points out that law firms might be less likely to want to sponsor non-compulsory courses (as many currently cover the fees for the compulsory LPC) such as ‘crammer’ courses for the SQE. This would lead to students from poorer backgrounds being disadvantaged as wealthier students could afford to pay for the courses while poorer students could not. Additionally it was noted that the proposals would not set a cap on the number of times each section of the SQE could be taken, allowing for multiple re-takes, which also might favour wealthier students.

At present, with the proposals so vague, it is impossible to assess the potential impact on social mobility. If the removal of approved pathways to qualification decreases cost, then the impact may be positive. On the other hand, law firms may continue to require law degree and vocational training courses, regardless of the SRA making these non-compulsory, in order to ensure that their trainees have sufficient knowledge before beginning work. If so, then any new vocational training course developed to enable students to pass the SQE is likely to be just the LPC by another name, and costs will remain the same, or perhaps even increase as private providers take advantage of the market.

The reputation of the title ‘solicitor’ has also been used by both sides to prop up their argument. The SRA has stated that the title will be enhanced by the SQE because it will overcome existing problems of variability in training – as they say, there are currently ‘104 institutions offering Qualifying Law Degrees; 33 offering the GDL; 26 offering the LPC and over 2,000 firms offering traineeships’, and not all of these providers offer or require the same standards and training. The SQE will lay down a core set of standards and competences which must be met by everyone wishing to become a solicitor, no matter their educational or employment background. But the Law Society has pointed out that the absence of specific training pathways, and lack of defined requirements for those taking the SQE, might lead to a loss of confidence in the title. It will only take one report of a member of the public with no legal training and no degree sitting down with a book for a few weeks and then passing the exam for the title ‘solicitor’ to be devalued. But as with social mobility, the lack of specificity in the proposals prevents a detailed analysis of the possible impact on the prestige of the profession.


At present no effective conclusions can be drawn. If the new SQE promotes higher and more stringent standards of entry into the profession, while also lowering costs and barriers to entry, then it should be welcomed with open arms. But if it favours the wealthy, promotes nepotism and lowers the actual or perceived intellectual standards of the profession, then it should be treated with great caution.

Thursday 10 December 2015

Michael Gove and the Power of the U-Turn

The term ‘u-turn’ is often used pejoratively in political commentary. It is used to suggest that a politician is easily swayed by public or media opinion and does not have the courage of his or her convictions. However, this overlooks the fact that the u-turn can in fact be positive – as exemplified by Michael Gove.

When it was announced during the Cabinet reshuffle that Michael Gove was to be the new Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the general opinion of many in the legal community – especially the legal aid community – was not one of optimism. Some warned not to pre-judge him; others were downright miserable, with memories of his time as Education Secretary and the visceral loathing he inspired in many teachers fresh in their minds. Few were enthused by the choice.

But Michael Gove has, slowly but surely, begun to win many of us over. Not by many radical new policies, but through the mechanism of the u-turn – or as some commentators have put it, by not being Chris Grayling.

During his short time as Lord Chancellor Michael Gove has overturned the following policies, all created or enthusiastically pursued by his predecessor Mr Grayling: he closed the ‘commercial arm’ of the Ministry of Justice, Just Solutions International, which was known for attempting to sell UK justice system expertise to brutal dictatorships; he overturned the prison ‘book ban’; he scrapped plans for a ‘secure college’, which was described by the Howard League as a ‘super-prison for children’; and most recently, he abolished the Criminal Courts Charge.

Every one of these u-turns was a positive step for justice and the rule of law. In addition, each of them was an entirely common-sense decision. With each policy overturn, Michael Gove is winning over the support of lawyers and other stakeholders in the legal profession; and he props up this support with the tone taken in speeches – one which emphasises the importance of the rule of law and of a functioning justice system and does not seek to decry his opponents as being self-interested.

Of course, one glaring omission remains: two tier Criminal Contracts. The Ministry of Justice has clung doggedly to this policy despite the endless setbacks, delays, protests, whistleblowers, and now what has been described as a ‘tidal wave’ of litigation, both in the form of public procurement challenges and a Judicial Review for which permission has just been granted.

Other commentators have laid out the potential consequences of the two tier contracts in great depth so these will not be examined here, except to say that many expect the limitation of access to justice; the end of large numbers of high street firms; and an increase in ‘conveyor-belt’ justice, with minimal time spent on each case.

So we ask Mr Gove: will you complete this final u-turn and stop pursuing two tier contracts, and by doing so show yourself to be a principled and just Lord Chancellor – one worthy of the title, despite lacking legal qualifications – and an upholder of the rule of law?


The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the firm or its partners.