Legal education review calls for response to 'radical' proposals
The Legal Education and Training Review (LETR) has issued a call for feedback on radical proposals for reform, including the replacement of the traditional training contract with a more flexible period of 'supervised practice'. The review, billed as the most fundamental examination of legal education and training since the Ormrod report of 1971, has published the first of three consultation papers to canvas views on potential reforms, which also include the abolition of the concept of a qualifying law degree and the introduction of national assessments at the point of entry to the profession.
April 11, 2012 at 07:08 PM
3 minute read
The Legal Education and Training Review (LETR) has issued a call for feedback on radical proposals for reform, including the replacement of the training contract with a more flexible period of 'supervised practice'.
The review, billed as the most fundamental examination of legal education and training since the Ormrod report of 1971, has published the first of three consultation papers to canvas views on potential reforms of the profession's current training and education framework.
The paper looks at the pros and cons of the removal of certain elements of the current system, citing the issue of the 'bottleneck' created by current qualification paths such as the training contract, while also putting forward the case for more flexibility in the early stages of a legal career.
Other proposals outlined in the paper include the abolition of the concept of a qualifying law degree and common training for budding lawyers.
The research consortium, which consists of four legal education professors, two full-time researchers and three consultants, also questions whether the training contract limits access to the profession, and subsequently whether there should be another form of supervised training which is less prescriptive.
The consultation is now open for discussion by key stakeholders and the general public, with a deadline for responses to feed into a follow-on paper set for 10 May.
The LETR, which was jointly commissioned by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the Bar Standards Board and ILEX Professional Standards, is reconsidering current systems of legal education and training in the wake of the changes ushered in by the Legal Services Act. The SRA discussed the review's progress to date and the first consultation paper at a meeting last week (4 April).
SRA executive director Samantha Barrass commented: "We are keen to receive input from our stakeholders at all stages of the review, both during the 2012 initial research phase and subsequently in 2013 and onwards when we formulate and consult on a new education and training regime.
"It is vital, given the enormous implications of the outcomes of this review, that we ensure everyone has a chance to comment and contribute."
Click here to read the full consultation paper.
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