Engaging practice: workshops with the profession on the new LPC

In their paper Clare Gilligan (Solicitors Regulation Authority) and Melissa Hardee (Hardee Consulting) presented a report on the outcomes of a series of workshops held by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Law Society for England and Wales on the new Legal Practice Course (LPC).

Clare and Melissa’s slides are embedded below.

The purpose of the workshops was to engage the profession with the changes to the LPC and to encourage them to take advantage of the new flexibilities. In addition, it was hoped to obtain the profession’s feedback on the changes.

Ten workshops were held between November 2008 and January 2009 in London (two – one for City firms, another for Greater London firms), Manchester, Birmingham, Nottingham, Cambridge, Reading, Cardiff, Newcastle and Bristol.

The workshops were arranged by the local Law Society, with invitees including firms, course providers, students and in-house employers. An average of 20 people attended each session, which took the form of a talk by Melissa, as a member of the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s Education and Training Committee, explaining the current and new courses, followed by a talk by a member of the Law Society Training Committee on the implications for firms.

Response

Although response to the changes has not been entirely positive, the response to the workshops themselves was. Firms appreciated the opportunity to hear about the changes and what the implications were for them, and they gave providers an opportunity to engage with their local profession. Interest has been such that further workshops have been arranged, including a further London workshop and one specifically for in-house legal departments.

Change/opportunity	Response	Reasons
move from prescribing process to prescribing outcomes to be demonstrated	not much comment, although putting greater emphasis on demonstrating competence welcomed
splitting course into Stage 1 and Stage 2	little interest	general response that the current LPC as one course works well
recruiting someone who has only completed Stage 1	almost no interest in recruiting someone who has only completed Stage 1 possible for firms which recruit before students commence the LPC among firms recruiting once the LPC has been completed the consensus was that firms would not wish to recruit students who had not completed Stage 2 as well as Stage 1 general feeling that this flexibility may be attractive to students but not to firms	someone who has only completed Stage 1 is not seen as being sufficiently prepared for practice administrative and training nightmare if had some trainees having done both Stages 1 and 2, and others who had only done Stage 2
allowing trainee to complete Stage 2 whilst working	only two firms out of the 10 workshops saw this as beneficial, on the basis that the trainee could do the relevant elective before the relevant seat – all other firms (and the Law Society Training Committee reps) were against this	concern as to cost for smaller firms – who would/should pay: the firm or the student/trainee? the disruption of having someone taking time out to do electives (a problem firms already have with the Professional Skills Course) . Clifford Chance has calculated that allowing trainees to complete Stage 2 whilst working would mean the firm having to employ 30% more trainees, and would add three months on to the training contract
students being able to move between providers	concern by firms at how to evaluate/judge what student has done
set minimum notional learning hours and face to face teaching hours
three electives out of at least two different subject groups
flexibility as to assessment	concern as to rigour and maintaining standards, although assessments being more practice-based welcomed
all skills and probate assessed during Stage 1	some concern that Stage 1 will be too assessment heavy and that teaching of skills could suffer; comments on poor writing and research skills coming off LPC
flexibility in curriculum to tailor	overall, little interest in customising the LPC not really an option for small firms also concern as to how providers could really offer many variations the most tailoring firms interested in is really in relation to electives	concern that too early to specialise and that what firms need is more general grounding partly altruistic (transferability of skills and knowledge) but also self interest in that firms need to be able to deploy people where they need them
standard form student transcripts	more transparency in student performance welcomed, however, some firms concerned at loss of grades comment made on having only grades of ‘competent’ and ‘not yet competent’ for skills, as this tended to encourage students to minimum achievement
provider to publish a minimum set of information about course	many firms, as well as students, unhappy about losing grading of courses. – both find the gradings helpful in selecting between providers, and were not persuaded that a requirement to publish a minimum set of information would be sufficient
new authorisation and validation process	although providers find current monitoring regime onerous, firms tend to take comfort from its rigour – much concern at absence of visits to provider under new process, and at heavy reliance on self assessment reports and external examiner reports
option for providers to offer new LPC from September 2009	many firms and nearly all students were unaware of the new LPC – students who were in the process of applying for the course were particularly concerned; information about the new LPC does not appear to have penetrated to university careers advisers

Summary of responses to specific changes

The Law Society perspective

There is a spectrum of possible involvement for firms in the new LPC:

1. Allowing trainee to choose which LPC provider, electives etc ie no prescription.
2. List of recommended providers and/or electives.
3. Directing trainees to a specific, tailored LPC.
4. Part of a consortium of firms using one or more approved providers.
5. Exclusive tie-up with one provider and input into course tailoring.
6. Running its own LPC.

Where a firm positions itself depends on a range of issues, including resources. Clifford Chance is settling at point 5 on the spectrum, while the majority of firms fall between 1 and 3.

There are pros and cons for tailoring, and concern for students who have to study while working full time. An additional concern is the effectiveness of skills teaching in the new Stage 1, and also that they are not taught effectively through distance learning.

If firms were to recruit students who had only completed Stage 1, there was concern as to the trainee’s workload in trying to work full time and study. Will firms, particularly smaller ones, be able to allow the necessary study time?

Nick Johnson (University of Warwick) reports:

Clare began the session with a short résumé of the genesis of the LPC reforms and the approach of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to regulation in this area. Essentially, the SRA saw its role as defining and ensuring the outcomes for entry into the profession rather than laying down the detailed process for the LPC.

Clare and Melissa then described the consultation process with the profession on the LPC. 10 workshops had been held, with a further five pending, with an average of 20 participants. The theme of the workshops was engagement with the LPC, to encourage firms to take advantage of the new flexibility.

The main feature of the reforms, namely the opportunity to split the LPC between Stage1 (core) and Stage 2 (electives), had not attracted support amongst firms in the workshops, and in questions it was reported that there were as yet no known applications to LPC providers for the ‘core only’ course. Nor did it seem likely that many firms would be attracted to a candidate who had only completed Stage 1 before the work-based learning stage of training.

It was recognised both in the presentation and in discussion that during the transition to LPC3 it was likely that students and their advisers would be confused at the range of offerings. Clare reported that the Law Society was preparing a Rough Guide to LPCs for 2010, and that there was now a Legal Practice Course information pack on the SRA website.

About the presenters

Clare Gilligan is Head of Education and Training Policy at the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Her responsibilities cover all aspects of standards setting both pre- and post-qualification, quality assurance of training provision and transfer arrangements.

Clare contributed an article on changes to the qualification process for solicitors to the Spring 2008 issue of Directions.

Melissa Hardee is a consultant with Hardee Consulting, providing advisory, strategic development, research and project management services in the areas of legal education and training, knowledge management, practice management and professional regulation.

Prior to setting up Hardee Consulting Melissa was Course Director of the LPC at City Law School. She has been a member of the Law Society’s Education and Training Committee, a member of its Training Framework Review Group and chair of the Association of LPC Providers, and is currently a member of the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s Education and Training Committee.

Last Modified: 9 July 2010