Legal education in practice: insights on a journey

In summer 2002 Chris Ashford moved from lecturing to become Legal Education Officer at Irwin Mitchell Solicitors. In this article from the Spring 2003 issue of Directions Chris considers how legal education operates – and could operate – within a commercial framework.

Editor’s note: read Legal education in practice: an initial survey (2009) for more on Chris’ experiences in practice

The thought of transferring from the proverbial warm bosom of academia into the ether of commerce is enough to strike terror into many academics’ hearts. Thus, when I informed a number of colleagues that I had been offered the chance to move from academia and into a law firm setting I was met with a range of reactions.

The role I was to undertake involved developing a legal training strategy for one of England’s top 20 law firms – devising and delivering programmes of legal training across all practice areas and the firm’s five national city locations. One thing was clear – this was going to be very different from academic life! This journey from academia to practice has given me a few insights, which I will briefly explore here.

The move represented a significant personal challenge, in terms of the high profile and significant role I would be taking up. The leap at such an early stage in my career was undoubtedly a significant one, but of more significance was the culture change from academia to private practice.

One practitioner recently commented to me that he doesn’t “worry about Bills – it’s when they become law that I get interested”. For academics that is perhaps a difficult concept to grasp. Academics focus on the creation of law, the decision making and the law making process. It is the process that is of concern and focus. For practitioners it is the law, the end point, the result that is of concern.

Particularly since post Woolf, the ‘skill’ base of practice has also arguably changed. One observation is that the skills demanded by practice are perhaps not always met by traditional legal training, primarily in the form of the law degree and the Legal Practice Course (LPC). There remains limited consideration of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or mediation within a clinical legal education context, yet within practice its importance has increased considerably, especially with the implementation of the pre-action protocols.

Another similar area is that of funding. For many in academia, a reference to conditional fee arrangements (CFAs) or after event insurance (AFI) would be met with a blank expression. However, the reality of practice, as indeed it always has been, is ‘the bottom line’, ie costs and funding. Even at a degree level such issues perhaps need to be addressed. Indeed, many law graduates undertake paralegal work prior or during their study for the LPC, and for these graduates such information would prove invaluable.

Such changes and issues within ‘practice’ are set against considerable changes and pattern shifts within the higher education sector, particularly and most significantly within student finance. These finance issues have already had an impact on what has been termed the ‘student experience’, and the government’s latest plans will no doubt have a further impact.

Students are already choosing to live closer to or to remain at home with their parents in order to minimise costs, and there has been an increase in the numbers of students wishing to pursue part time learning rather than full time study so they can continue in full time employment. Whilst lecturing I noticed a marked increase in the numbers of students undertaking a full time degree also undertaking part time work to fund their education, often impacting on their performance and personal well being.

Though one cannot yet accurately predict the extent of the impact of the latest round of governmental changes upon the education sector, one can safely conclude that the carrot of funding is for students an important consideration in choosing their career path.

Indeed, set against this stark landscape of education funding arrangements, it is perhaps not inconceivable that students will eventually seek out a ‘modern legal apprenticeship’, consisting of NVQs, the ILEX qualification and the LPC, all studied whilst working within a firm.

In addition to these ‘formal’ nationally recognised structures, firms can also offer a range of skill based courses that are specific to their firm throughout this training process. For instance, advocacy skills and a variety of practice area specific training can be coupled with soft skills and IT skills training. This IT skills training can cover not only the software ‘students’ experience within the high education sector (MS Office, Lawtel et al), but also electronic case management software, which is crucial within a modern practice but which for logical reasons does not exist within a university based education.

For large scale firms the advantages are clear – a personalised educated workforce. For students, such a framework offers them the chance of a funded education with the all-important job at the end of the process. However, for smaller firms the resources simply do not exist to develop such a model. The consequence of this could be significant from a recruitment perspective – such a scenario could render medium to large scale firms the legal education powerhouses of the future.

There will remain, as there always has been, an ‘affluent’ dimension to the university student populace who will continue to seek out a traditional route into the profession, or indeed, as many students do at present, a section of the student populace who undertake a ‘traditional’ law based degree which will allow them to fully enjoy the ‘traditional’ university experience and render them employable for a non law based career.

However, for many from a lower or middle class background the only route into the legal profession would be to follow such a form of ‘modern legal apprenticeship’. Indeed, it is the fact that many law students do not go into the legal profession per se that represents one of the most significant challenges for higher education institutions. Striking a balance between the needs of practice for those wanting to go into the profession and the needs of those who do not is a difficult one. This is further complicated by those students who commence a law degree with a firm intention to be a ‘lawyer’ yet by their final year are adamant they want to do anything but law. This is a problem that would be perpetuated by such a form of ‘modern legal apprenticeship’. Indeed, for some firms, the funding of such students would perhaps represent an unjustifiable risk in expenditure.

Some institutions within the university sector, and to a lesser extent within further education, have already recognised the need to adapt and change, offering an increase in clinical legal education for their own students and appealing to the firm market by offering a range of CPD and professionally recognised courses for fee earners. The old adage ‘adapt or die’ has perhaps never been truer when applied to aspects of the university sector at present, particularly within in the ‘new university’ sector. For them, these are uncertain times, and the threat of long term terminal decline is all too real. Friend or foe, legal education within practice is a thorny nettle that must be grasped.

Last Modified: 4 June 2010