A quarrel far away? The Training Framework Review and the undergraduate law school

In this article from the Autumn 2005 issue of Directions Chris Ashford (University of Sunderland) reviews the implications of the Law Society of England and Wales’ Training Framework Review for undergraduate law schools.

See our Legal Practice Course review page for full details of the Training Framework Review.

How horrible, fantastic, incredible, it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.

---

Neville Chamberlain, 1938

The history of legal education is peppered with talk of crises and historical turning points, whether it is the Ormrod Report, the creation of the ‘new’ universities, or more recently Dearing and top-up fees. Crises have come and gone; yet legal education has often been changed by these developments. Perhaps not a witness to a revolution but certainly to a process of slow organic change.

In March 2005 the Law Society of England and Wales published the much anticipated latest draft of the Training Framework Review (TFR). It contains some surprisingly radical proposals that would dramatically reshape legal education if implemented. Yet to many law teachers it may seem an event taking place far away; of concern for providers of the Legal Practice Course (LPC) future and present, but not for the undergraduate Qualifying Law Degree (QLD) provider.

The move towards an outcomes-based approach is perhaps one of the most significant elements of the proposed TFR, rendering the traditional QLD, LPC and Professional Skills Course (PSC) route largely redundant at a stroke. As if to underline this the consultation removes any requirement that a candidate has undertaken any formal legal training (although it does require a period of work-based learning).

As such, if a candidate can gain the required outcomes via an alternative route, whether it be a form of Modern Legal Apprenticeship or through working within practice, then the need for any higher education experience (the requirement for an honours degree being unclear in the TFR) may be avoided. The notion of a Qualifying Law Degree ceases to be a certainty. Although this move is of immediate and drastic concern to current providers of the LPC, it must also be of concern to providers of undergraduate law degrees.

It should however be made clear that the TFR does not itself set out such a radical development, but rather expressly states that it expects the majority of candidates still to undertake a law degree. Although the question does linger, if you were the Law Society seeking to bring about radical change, wouldn’t you say the same thing to law schools? Furthermore, there is real potential for a ‘back door’ assault on the law degree. Even if that is not the direct intention of the Law Society, and I am not convinced it is, once Pandora’s Box is opened it may be difficult to control the end results.

Those who view the law degree as a vocational degree are likely to continue to attract students, but what could be more vocational than undertaking a programme of work-based learning, through which one could also achieve the required outcomes? Thus a vocational styled degree may find itself competing with a law firm based route such as a Modern Legal Apprenticeship. In such a context, the wisdom of marketing a ‘vocational’ law degree appears questionable.

On the face of it this may therefore appear to be a victory for the proponents of the liberal law degree. After all, if the function of a law degree becomes equal to that of any other degree, in that it must embrace transferable skills then it has re-aligned so as to reflect those liberal ideals.

Yet there is another force at play here. A higher education experience is expensive, and from 2006 will be a very expensive endeavour for many more. In such a climate, spending several thousand pounds on a degree because it’s ‘a good thing’ when that money might buy a car or a deposit on a first home is likely to become an increasingly challenging proposition for many.

It is feasible that we may be at another defining moment in the history of legal education. The expediential growth of the LLB that we have seen in the last few decades may slow down if not stop, and perhaps even decline.

This may seem a less than bright vision for legal education, but in such a situation law degrees would survive by attracting ever more students who do not intend to be legal practitioners in a traditional ‘lawyer’ sense. Within the context of the TFR the need for a restrictive joint statement (from the Law Society and Bar Council) on law degrees becomes less persuasive.

It may be tempting for undergraduate providers to view the debate surrounding the TFR as a debate far away, amongst vocational law teachers of whom we know little or nothing. To do so would be a mistake. While for some the TFR may have little or minimal effect, for others it may offer immense opportunities matched by equally immense challenges.

A number of issues remain unclear regarding the TFR, but one thing is clear – the TFR will affect us all, and we should all start engaging in this debate.

Last Modified: 4 June 2010