With recruitment and retention now a key issue for both law firms and in-house legal departments, the ability to offer high quality professional development is a key tool in developing and retaining talent.

Legal Week, in association with LexisNexis, recently canvassed 430 US and UK-qualified lawyers – from trainees to junior and senior associates, to partners and senior in-house lawyers. The survey looked at their needs for continuing professional development (CPD), and whether the training currently being offered is up to scratch.

What emerged from the survey is the broad definition lawyers give to CPD – clearly, the message that being a good technical lawyer is not enough has filtered down to all levels of fee earner. Lawyers in both private practice and the business world want mentors, management training and leadership skills on top of being able to offer sound legal advice.

The survey's results come as the Law Society reviews the current state of legal education and the professional development of lawyers throughout their careers. Proposals include allowing trainees to qualify without a contract, providing they have acquired the core skills needed for the profession.

Just as some of the Law Society's training proposals have sparked controversy, so the Legal Week survey reveals a surprising divergence of opinion as to what constitutes professional development and exactly how it can benefit a lawyer's career.

What is professional development?

Respondents were asked to highlight what they consider professional development to be – for example, does a course on leadership skills count? Or should it just be confined to technical legal training? The responses confirm the latter – 96% of respondents identify technical legal training as a key theme in professional development. However, lawyers clearly value training on softer skills too – 70% considered leadership and managerial training to be part of their professional development needs, while two-thirds (66%) valued mentoring.

Around half of the respondents also identified the benefits of structured assessment processes (49%), and just over a third (37%) highlighted formal business and economics training as being part and parcel of their CPD needs.

Somewhat surprisingly, only about a quarter of respondents identified secondments to clients (28%) or the opportunity to work abroad (22%), as of use, while less than a fifth regarded the opportunity to undertake language courses (18%) as useful professional development.

Among respondents based at US firms in London, slightly more emphasis is placed on presentation (93%) and mentoring (74%), and slightly less on managerial training (63%) – a reflection perhaps of the traditionally lighter managerial approach taken by US firms.

Lawyers working at US firms placed a much greater emphasis on the opportunity to work abroad, with 52% of this sector of respondents seeing it as an important element of their professional development. They rated secondments more highly as well, with 48% citing time spent working for a client as 'constituting professional development' compared to the 28% of solicitors working for UK firms.

Assistants

Among trainees, technical legal training (96%) and presentation skills (84%) understandably top the list of demands, with significantly less emphasis placed on managerial (55%) and leadership (35%) skills – trainees clearly have their priority on developing as a lawyer. With some of the tasks formerly reserved for trainees now being done automatically through templates or bespoke IT programmes, today's trainees and qualified lawyers are keen to make sure they do not miss out on technical training.

Jon Brewer, director of practitioner solutions at LexisNexis, says that technological advances need to be balanced with old-fashioned training: "Great advances in legal know-how provide junior lawyers with valuable short cuts and help them to work efficiently, but it is vital this is supported by high-quality technical legal training and hands-on experience."

He suggests education techniques need to be adapted to ensure junior lawyers have new ways of acquiring the experience they need "in a low-risk environment that complements and does not interfere with client work. Some law firms are already addressing this by developing large-scale off-site simulations," he explains.

The focus on managerial training does appear to grow as lawyers develop, with well over half (59%) of lawyers with up to two years' post-qualification experience (PQE) highlighting its importance. Mentoring also becomes more important at this stage, as lawyers seek out senior fee earners whose careers paths they may aspire to follow – one in seven lawyers with 0-2 years' post-qualification experience value mentoring over one in five trainees.

However, as lawyers become more experienced however, they do not lose sight of the need to continue to learn the necessary technical skills. Those with 3-5 years' PQE, as well as 6+ years' PQE, all cite technical legal training as the key professional development activity.

Assistants with 3-5 years' PQE also place significant emphasis on managerial (80%) and leadership (83%) training, and also mentoring (87%), as their thoughts turn towards gunning for senior associate and eventually partner status. Presentation skills are most popular with assistants with 6+ years' PQE – presumably to help convince the partnership they are worthy of joining the equity.

As lawyers' experience grows, so clearly does their demand for technical and managerial expertise, while their desire for structured assessments (40%) and more esoteric skills – academic understanding (33%), languages (8%), and the opportunity to work abroad (40%) – seem to diminish.

Partners

Among partners, a continued desire to keep abreast of technical legal skills still dominates (95%), but there is also a very strong desire to develop their softer managerial (93%), presentation (85%) and leadership (85%) skills – inevitably in line with their wider business development roles – echoed in the importance also placed on developing their mentoring skills (69%).

Noticeable also, is the emphasis partners place on academic (business and economic) training (47%) – more than any respondent class. As lawyer-focused MBAs and official qualifications become more popular, the pressure on partners to have this kind of qualification may build.

In-house lawyers

Despite the higher demand on the part of their clients for non-legal business advice, a similar picture emerges among in-house lawyers in terms of their professional development needs. Ninety-five percent see technical skills training as paramount, alongside one in eight who rate managerial skills and two-thirds who value leadership training.

Nonetheless, in-house lawyers place the least emphasis among all respondents on the value of structured assessment processes (38%) or mentoring (43%). This could be because many small in-house departments do not offer structured assessment processes or mentoring schemes.

The demands of CPD

A related issue is the regulatory obligation placed on lawyers to continue to develop their professional skills.

Since 1985, the Law Society has operated a compulsory CPD scheme, which is guided by the principles of 'simplicity and flexibility' – solicitors are encouraged to assume responsibility for their own development.

All solicitors and registered European lawyers (RELs) who are in legal practice or employment in England and Wales, and work 32 hours (or more) per week, are required to complete a minimum of 16 hours of CPD per year. For solicitors and RELs who work fewer than 32 hours per week, the requirements are reduced.

Law firms and in-house departments are authorised to provide CPD training for their own staff, although the Law Society does operate an authorisation scheme for external CPD training providers in order to regulate quality.

Among UK respondents, a large proportion believe that the current annual CPD requirement is enough (44%), although 17% suggest raising the current level up to 20 hours, while 18% believe the figure should be 21-25 hours a year.

Only 4% of UK respondents believe that the current level of compulsory CPD hours should be reduced, while a further 6% believe the requirement should be significantly increased – to 30 hours or more.

However, one respondent comments that a set hourly figure is a blunt measure of development. "It is not difficult for anyone to make up the hours, but that does not mean the time is well spent," they say.

Another suggests: "There should be more technical training in the first three years of PQE, and thereafter a change of emphasis towards softer skills."

There is seemingly less confidence in the current quota among US respondents, of whom only 30% agree with the current quota, while 15% believe it should be reduced, and around half (48%) believe it should be increased – with the largest body of opinion (26%) suggesting between 17 and 20 hours.

Again, the use of a single measure for all lawyers is questioned – with a reduced figure suggested for more senior lawyers (6+ years' PQE) by one respondent, while another states: "Lawyers should keep themselves up-to-date irrespective of the CPD requirements."

Assistants

Among assistants, it is the more senior that most endorse the current requirements, with 49% of 3-5 year PQE assistants and 51% of 6+ year PQE assistants agreeing with the current 16-hour rule – compared with only 34% of trainees and 30% of 0-2 year PQE assistants.

Perhaps surprisingly, 8% of trainees believe the number of hours should be cut, as do 9% of 6+ PQEs. A nominal amount of 0-2 year PQE or 3-5 year PQEs hold the same opinion.

More than half of the trainees who were surveyed believe the number of hours should be increased, with a third suggesting in excess of 21 hours, while 70% of 0-2 year PQEs suggest the minimum number of hours should be raised, with 32% suggesting more than 26 hours.

Among the more senior associates, only 13% of 3-5 year PQEs suggest a compulsory figure over 26 hours, and only 9% of 6+ year PQEs.

Law firm partners seem broadly in favour of the current CPD requirements placed upon them and their lawyers. Just under half (47%) believe that 16 hours is adequate, although 18% suggest it could be a little higher – between 17 and 20 hours – with the same figure suggesting an increase up to 25 hours.

Only 4% of partners believe the current requirement is too high – in line with the general UK respondent trend – while a similarly small percentage, 8%, suggest 26 hours or more.

In-house lawyers also endorse the current system, with almost half (48%) of the belief that 16 hours is a realistic annual target to achieve.

Nonetheless, just under two-fifths of respondents (38%) believe the figure should be increased, with a third suggesting 21-30 hours, and 14% suggesting 26-30 hours – although a tenth still believe the current annual requirement should be reduced.

Training delivery

As more and more information that senior lawyers need becomes available online, their technical training needs have changed – but LexisNexis' Brewer argues the migration of data online can work to the advantage of senior lawyers: "Rapid progress in aggregating legal information online creates the potential to unleash significant productivity gains in law firms. For example, the development of third-party know-how frees up senior lawyer time and can liberate professional support lawyers to focus on business development and specialist advice. However, without the support of a rigorous programme of technical legal training for lawyers at all levels, this could be a case of one step forward and two back."

In terms of how training is given to lawyers, there seems to be a clear preference among those organising or providing the services, for group training (externally and internally) and for conferences. Less common is web training, although it is available both externally and internally, with the latter seeming to dominate.

UK lawyers seem to be receiving a wider array of options than their US counterparts, although common to both sets of respondents is the relative lack of emphasis given to online training or that delivered through DVDs and CD-ROMs, or through the use of wikis, blogs or webcasts.

Among assistants, there seems to be a strong preference to provide group coaching, most usually internally, although individual coaching is also popular, as is the use of internal web training and conferences – the latter increasingly so for senior assistants, as is external training generally, and a growing use of online media such as blogs, wikis and podcasts. Partners seem to enjoy a wide array of training delivery methods, but again there is a preference to supply group coaching, internally and externally.

Conferences remain popular, as do the use of online and new media resources for a minority. In-house lawyers are, relatively, the poor relation when it comes to training delivery, with the majority of respondents being offered external programmes such as a conference. While a number highlight the provision of internal group training programmes, there is relatively little emphasis on new media or online programmes.

Training methods