SRA says 'one size fits all' approach to legal training must end
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has set out a series of proposals to overhaul the UK's legal education and training system, in response to a major review of the sector, which concluded in June. In a policy statement published today (15 October), the SRA said it wants an end to what it called the "one size fits all" approach to the solicitors' qualification, including the development of more "flexible" routes that are "tailored to specific markets and needs".
October 15, 2013 at 07:03 AM
3 minute read
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has set out a series of proposals to overhaul the UK's legal education and training system, in response to a major review of the sector, which concluded in June.
In a policy statement published tomorrow (16 October), the SRA says it wants an end to what it called the "one size fits all" approach to the solicitors' qualification, including the development of more "flexible" routes that are "tailored to specific markets and needs".
The regulator also proposes a shake-up of what it called the "box-ticking exercise" of continuing personal development (CPD).
The SRA's set of proposals, outlined in a document called Training for Tomorrow, follow the June publication of the Legal Education and Training Review (LETR), billed as the most fundamental examination of legal education and training in 40 years.
Many of the report's suggestions echo those of the SRA and Bar Standards Board-sponsored LETR, which said the legal profession had developed "too great a reliance on initial qualification as a foundation for continuing competence".
On CPD, the SRA warns that the system was not sufficiently focused on outcomes.
Speaking to Legal Week, former Herbert Smith Freehills partner Julie Brannan, the regulator's new director of education, said: "We want to shift the focus to specifying the number of hours to take, and looking much harder at what comes out of it.
"Each solicitor might have to reflect harder on what their own training needs are. Currently, it's not targeted, and we only specify that people have undertaken 16 hours a year."
Brannan also said elements of the SRA's oversight and checks at the point of prospective solicitors' entry to training and education amounted to "an easy red tape cutting exercise", which could be axed and, instead, delegated to individual training providers.
The report concludes that education and training is "out of step with, and not integrated into, our outcomes-focused, risk-based approach to regulation", and that the SRA should create greater flexibility and help promote diverse access to the profession.
The SRA also says it will address concerns related to the cost of initial training, availability of training contracts, unfair treatment in recruitment and limited recognition of prior experience.
The regulator expects to draft a 'statement of competence' by January 2014, which would draw on a number of the LETR's findings on the outcomes expected from solicitors' education and training.
The report also acknowledges the "significant changes to the structure of the legal services workforce" and the growth of a variety of non-legal, hybrid and technician and paralegal roles, but it backed the LETR report's conclusions that "there is no clearly established need to move to individual regulation of paralegals".
Brannan said various entities regulated by the SRA – but not the SRA itself – should look to regulate the burgeoning area of the paralegal-led legal services market. "It's difficult to regulate, and we don't want to step in where there is a one-size fits all approach," she commented.
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
- 1Pa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
- 2Connecticut Movers: Year-End Promotions, Hires and an Office Opening
- 3Luigi Mangione Defense Attorney Says NYC Mayor’s Comments on Case Raise Fair Trial Concerns
- 4Revisiting the Boundaries Between Proper and Improper Argument: 10 Years Later
- 5Hochul Vetoes 'Grieving Families' Bill, Faulting a Lack of Changes to Suit Her Concerns
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