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 All'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': US Law Firm Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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