Bar Standards Board pushes back introduction of BPTC aptitude test
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has confirmed a new timetable for the introduction of an aptitude test for the Bar Vocational Training Course (BPTC). The body's current pilot scheme is set to conclude in October this year, with the BSB subsequently submitting its findings to the Legal Services Board for approval two months later.
March 18, 2011 at 10:03 AM
2 minute read
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has confirmed a new timetable for the introduction of an aptitude test for the Bar Vocational Training Course (BPTC).
The body's current pilot scheme is set to conclude in October this year, with the BSB subsequently submitting its findings to the Legal Services Board for approval two months later.
Once the correlation between the aptitude test scores and the students' final BPTC results has been fully analysed, a decision will be taken by the oversight body as to whether the test is fit for purpose.
If approved by the regulator, the new test will be introduced as an entry requirement for the BPTC for students applying to start the course in the autumn of 2012. The test will be available for applicants when the online application system opens in October.
The test had previously been expected to be introduced as an entry requirement for the BPTC for students applying to start the course in September this year.
BSB chair Baroness Ruth Deech (pictured) commented: "We are in no doubt that the aptitude test needs to be thoroughly piloted and have therefore amended our timetable to make sure that this is the case."
She added: "This is not something that can be rushed, we are happy to extend our timelines to ensure that those relying on the test in the future can have complete faith in it."
The BSB has been piloting the development of an aptitude test since 2009, following recommendations made by the Bar Vocational Course Review Group chaired by Derek Wood QC.
The aim of the test is to ensure that those undertaking the BPTC have the required skills to succeed, and helping to ensure that those without the required skills do not take on the financial burden of the training without realistic prospects of success.
This content has been archived.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 AllWickard AI Partners With Law School to Bring Legal AI Training to Ethiopia
What Firms in Australia Are Doing to Attract and Retain Lawyers in a Competitive Market
7 minute readReport: Toronto Law Students Did Not Breach School's Code of Conduct With Pro-Palestinian Letter
3 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