Shake-up of legal education faces new delay as review report is pushed back
The Legal Education and Training Review (LETR), the long-awaited investigation into standards of legal education in the UK, has been further delayed, with the research team's report now not expected to be released before this May. The review, billed as the most fundamental examination of legal education and training since the Ormrod report of 1971, is looking 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.
February 19, 2013 at 06:53 AM
2 minute read
The Legal Education and Training Review (LETR), the long-awaited investigation into standards of legal education in the UK, has been further delayed, with the research team's report now not expected to be released before this May.
The review, billed as the most fundamental examination of legal education and training since the Ormrod report of 1971, is looking 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.
Other proposals to have been mooted have included the abolition of the concept of a qualifying law degree and common training for budding lawyers.
In a statement yesterday (18 January), the LETR said: "The report is not now expected to be submitted to the three sponsoring regulators (the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Bar Standards Board and the Institute of Legal Executives Professional Standards) before May 2013, following which it will be published."
The body said the research team was making "good progress" to ensure the final report reflected "the range and depth of the data collected through extensive engagement with stakeholders".
Last November the LETR had indicated to Legal Week that a final publication date was "unlikely before mid-January".
Yesterday's statement continues: "The sponsoring regulators support the research team's view that it is important to ensure that the data is fully reflected in the report, even though that means a delay in its finalisation."
The group's research team began its work in June 2011, tasked with a complete review of education and training in all regulated and non-regulated legal services. On publication of the findings, it will be up to regulators to decide what action they will take in response to the recommendations.
In August a discussion paper published by the group highlighted "fundamental gaps" in the teaching of key commercial and client relationship skills, as well as communication, ethical awareness and organisational skills.
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
Wickard 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 read
Report: Toronto Law Students Did Not Breach School's Code of Conduct With Pro-Palestinian Letter
3 minute readTrending Stories
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
