Training and education: Point of entry
The effects of the Solicitors Regulation Authority's (SRA's) latest overhaul of the Legal Practice Course (LPC) will begin to be felt by students and legal service providers during the next two years.Although some LPC providers will implement the new LPC in 2009, most will adopt them in 2010 - the SRA's intended implementation date. The changes that are to be made to the LPC are designed to widen entry into the legal profession by enabling providers to potentially offer students a more flexible way of studying. However, this myriad of new possibilities may have left students and legal service providers feeling confused. Comments on web pages show that students are debating which route they should take; what the cost of the new LPC will be; how long it will take to complete the new LPC; and what will happen when LPC places outnumber training contracts.
March 18, 2009 at 10:33 PM
8 minute read
The SRA has been ringing the changes to the LPC, and students and legal service providers are beginning to feel the effects of the overhaul. Gillian Woodworth of the City Law School details the organisation's plans
The effects of the Solicitors Regulation Authority's (SRA's) latest overhaul of the Legal Practice Course (LPC) will begin to be felt by students and legal service providers during the next two years.
Although some LPC providers will implement the new LPC in 2009, most will adopt them in 2010 – the SRA's intended implementation date.
The changes that are to be made to the LPC are designed to widen entry into the legal profession by enabling providers to potentially offer students a more flexible way of studying. However, this myriad of new possibilities may have left students and legal service providers feeling confused. Comments on web pages show that students are debating which route they should take; what the cost of the new LPC will be; how long it will take to complete the new LPC; and what will happen when LPC places outnumber training contracts.
Students and legal service providers need not fear, though. Essentially, the new LPC will simply mirror the current course by assessing students on compulsory core practice areas, key skills and professional conduct (stage one), as well as elective modules (stage two).
Differences between the current LPC and the new LPC occur in the delivery of stage one and stage two modules. This is where students and legal service providers will have to decide which route is right for them, for business and for clients.
Legal service providers and students therefore have a number of decisions to make.
Key decisions for legal service providers to make
Legal service providers need to decide whether they want their trainees to complete both stages one and two before they start their training contracts; or whether they will employ trainees who have finished only stage one, with the intention that they will study stage two while training. Legal service providers that go for the first choice will effectively have trainees who are trained in the same way as the current LPC, so not much will change. However, if legal service providers decide to choose the latter route for their trainees, they will need to decide at what point during their trainees' contracts they would like them to study and pass their elective assessments.
Legal service providers that will accept, or even want, their trainees to take stage two while working, must take into consideration the time trainees may need to take out of work, to study or take exams – this could result in the loss of that fee earner's income for a short period of time. This route can benefit a legal service provider, as it will have more of a say in its trainees' legal education. A legal service provider would be able, for example, to request that its trainees must take electives that reflect its business and the seats that the trainee is taking. It could also identify which LPC providers offer elective subjects which are closely aligned with its practice areas, this may result in different providers for each elective.
This tailors a trainee's legal education, however, there could be a financial implication for a firm and this is something that it will need to think carefully about – would it be prepared to contribute financially either directly or indirectly to stage two of its trainees' LPC?
Key decisions for students
A lot of the decisions will, of course, rest with students. After all, the new guidelines have been created in order to widen diversity and take a student's personal circumstances into consideration.
If a student has already secured a training contact with a law firm that uses a specific LPC provider, the firm may dictate what electives a student should take and how long a trainee has to complete the LPC in.
For those who already have a training contract, but do not have to attend any specific LPC provider, their firms may give them guidance on which LPC route they should take. Legal service providers are expected to encourage their trainees to follow a more traditional LPC route, whereby trainees take one year to complete both stages of the new LPC.
Part-time or full-time
The first thing that many students will need to decide is whether to take both stages of the LPC part-time, full-time, or a mix of the two. Most institutions will still offer students the option to study both stages one and two in an academic year, but the new guidelines
mean that students will now also be able to take stage one full-time and stage two part-time or vice-versa. Students will need to identify a provider who delivers each stage of the course in modes that meet with their individual requirements and preferences. It is worth noting that it is expected that this decision will come down to how students will fund their studies. Therefore, it will be interesting to see what impact the new guideline changes will have on the cost of the LPC.
Students looking to secure a training contract are well advised to take an LPC route which suits them while making themselves as attractive as possible to potential employers.
During stage one, all LPC providers will have to offer the 'irreducible minimum' teaching and assessment of core practice modules. Students are still advised to compare what providers are offering. They should also think about the depth of coverage an institution offers in this stage. How do they learn – do they like to learn in large groups of students, very small groups, by being taught face to face or alone? With exercises on a computer? And how long does a provider take to deliver stage one training before the stage one assessment is taken – the application of legal principles and skills that are learnt on the LPC, should stay with a solicitor for life.
Another, perhaps less obvious consideration, is the level of award a student wishes to achieve from an LPC provider. It may be surprising to learn that some LPCs will be awarded at an undergraduate degree level, while others will be awarded at a masters level. Some LPC providers go one step further and offer students the opportunity to convert their LPC into an LLM.
Stage two of the new LPC gives students the option of staying with the same provider as for stage one; changing to a different provider to do all three electives; or doing each of the three electives at three separate providers.
When deciding how to study stage two, students need to think about the SRA's requirement that each module taken in stage two of the LPC should be different and taken from prescribed groups; any timetable clashes which could occur if a student studies each module in stage two at different institutions; and how a student's approach will affect their employment prospects (a strange combination of electives may show that they are unfocused, while a narrow combination of electives may restrict which employers will be interested in them).
Matchmaking
Ideally, students will need to consider carefully what approach will suit their aspirations. Do they want to work in a 'high street' environment or a more corporate, commercial environment? Does their chosen provider offer electives geared to the type of work they would prefer, or a sensible mix of the two?
Legal service providers also need to decide what type of trainee they want. They will have to think about their policies in relation to the new LPC and take into consideration how they can accommodate their trainees' needs alongside their own business needs.
The great thing about the new LPC is that it opens up the legal profession to students who would not have considered the profession in the past due to time restraints or its cost. By allowing stage two of the LPC to be taken and passed (including any resits) within a five year period, students are now able to work to support themselves, attend to family commitments and start their training contracts when it is right for them. Essentially, finding a trainee or legal service provider is about match-making and it cannot be stressed enough that trainees and legal service providers must suit each other.
Changes to the LPC
Current LPC
- Compulsory modules taken
- Elective modules taken
- Students required to take the whole LPC with one provider
- LPC must be completed in one year (full-time) or two years (part-time)
New LPC
- Stage one consists of compulsory core practice areas, key skills and professional conduct
- Stage two consists of three elective modules
- Stage one and stage two can be taken at different institutions
- Students have the option to take each of the stage two elective modules at different institutions
- Students have up to five years from sitting their first stage one assessment, to complete stage two of the LPC.
Gillian Woodworth is director of LPC programmes at The City Law School.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLosing its 'Sparkle'? Why Latham Has Faced a Stream of Exits in Europe, UK
6 minute read'Send These Guys Back to the US': Lawyers on Google's EU Antitrust Complaint Against Microsoft
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and Pryor Cashman have entered appearances for Diageo Americas Supply d/b/a Ciroc Distilling Co. and Sony Songs, a division of Sony Music Publishing, respectively, in a pending lawsuit. The case was filed Sept. 10 in New York Southern District Court by the Bloom Firm and IP Legal Studio on behalf of Dawn Angelique Richard. The plaintiff, who performed as a member of producer Sean 'Diddy' Combs girl group Danity Kane and later his band, Diddy - Dirty Money, claims that she was financially exploited by Combs and subjected to inhumane working conditions. Among other violations, Richard claims that Combs required group members to remain at his residences and studios, deprived them of adequate food and sleep and forced them to rehearse for 36 to 48 hours without breaks. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla, is 1:24-cv-06848, Richard v. Combs et al.
Who Got The Work
Mathilda McGee-Tubb and Kevin M. McGinty of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, as well as Jesse W. Belcher-Timme of Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury & Murphy, have stepped in to defend Peter Pan Bus Lines in a pending consumer class action. The suit, filed Sept. 4 in Massachusetts District Court by Hackett Feinberg PC and KalielGold PLLC, accuses the defendant of charging undisclosed 'junk fees' on top of ticket prices during checkout. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni, is 3:24-cv-12277, Mulani et al v. Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250