In, probably another attempt to "open the windows" and refresh Law and flexibility of the SRA, Paralegals are on track to the possibility of qualifying as solicitors if they meet the same standards as trainees through equivalent means of training. (There were new Training Regulations issued in 2014).
There is already the existence in all but admission of a two tiered system, the divide potentially being widened in the near future by this scheme together with Apprenticeship schemes in Law. It is undeniable that the profession is under pressure to increase its diversity and be less prescriptive about expectations of the route taken to qualification, with haste. Such a fast alteration is more likely to annoy Very Important People and recently qualified Solicitors who despite obstacles have somehow made it through 'the system.'
Remember - Law is elitist
This is an undeniable fact. Look at the Magic Circle and the wannabe Magic Circle firms such as DLA Piper. It is for this reason the profession is desperately trying to reinvent itself in such a short period of time. But the guise of inclusivity will never stand up to scrutiny, and nor is diversity necessarily a good thing. A non-standard background in candidates can be excellent and an asset, but a non-standard route to reaching the same status as a time-honoured route seems neither promising, nor essential.
A degree in Law is still a degree in Law, no matter where it is from or what letters are appended to your name. Nobody will admit it, but you find a firm that, all things being equal, would accept an applicant with a degree from a former Polytechnic over a Russell Group University. It just doesn't happen. Prove me wrong.
The increased elitism of the larger firms, which need more regulation, has lead to a lost generation of LPC graduates, moving from firm to firm as Paralegals in an attempt to gain experience and evidenced work. Will these 'make do' training contracts be recognised? It certainly shows more motivation and competence than having it directed for you through the existing scheme.
Although this innovation may seem good on paper, there is more promise that it will lead Paralegals and students down the garden path with no substance at the end of it.
The good news
Plenty of Paralegals have completed the LPC and are trying to obtain training contracts. Although this new route is challenging and has high standards (no doubt), it is a small ray of hope for those who cannot afford to repay a loan they have taken out to study the LPC.
Could this be unfair on the paralegals?
Absolutely. There is a vigorous scrutiny applied to the evidence supplied by Paralegals in their application to the SRA. This can take up to six months and will assess, among other things, the extent of work-based learning, which has no concrete definition. This will be finalised sometime in 2015 - so we have an incomplete plan. Another year of all talk.
Someone who would give their right arm for a position will of course look through this, grin and bear it, offer a sacrifice to the Law God and hope for the best. It shouldn't be that way.
It seems Paralegals are not necessarily valued as much as they should be, and more work is being fobbed onto them as they are cheaper to employ than Solicitors. They are also disposable.
Further, even if a Paralegal has gained appropriate experience over, say, 18 months with a firm, and are eligable to apply for a training contract if one comes up, they still must complete two years training according to a partner at the Smith Partnership.
During a consultation, the majority of those in support of the new flexible route emphasised a proviso that there was clear, explicit and well-publicised information on what would qualify as equivalent means. Since the current scheme for LPC graduates will remain in place until at least 2016-17, the carrot is only just being dangled. A pretty crappy carrot at that.
What are the criteria to be met?
Provisionally evidence on how the applicant works alongside solicitors; the legal nature of work undertaken; level of supervision; feedback on performance; appraisal comments; client interaction. Needless to say, this level of scrutiny is not applied to those with training contracts. This already suggests the 'new' route will not be as valued as the existing routes. If it were, why the difference? Of course, then we have the issue of extra-curricular activities. Highly unlikely this is given as much emphasis when looking back at successful candidates through the conventional routes in addition to the SRA requirement for experience in three distinct areas of Law, requiring swathes of evidence. So much of this is down to pot-luck. Simply because Paralegals don't have enough opportunities, of course they are adept at photocopying and filing. If they had more opportunities, the wages of existing Solicitors would have to go down, Very Important People would get disillusioned, yadda yadda yadda. Bad news.
What has the Law Society said on this?
"We support the initiatives that will enable people to qualify as solicotors where they have appropriate competence. Our concern with the SRA's approach is that it is not clear how far this will make a significant difference for many paralegals and whether this is the right time to introduce it given its other work on Training for Tomorrow [...] There is currently not much transparency about exactly how the process will work in practice."
In principle, this is an excellent idea, but can you imagine how many years and different paralegal positions at different firms it will take someone aspiring through this route to gain sufficient experience in sufficient areas? Paralegals just aren't 'important' enough to be given an equal opportunity to learn. Nor is it a reasonable or fair expectation that larger firms with many Paralegals will be able to support them all equally and fairly down this route. Then there is the complication with business models for these firms - which are of course primarily businesses and must make profit in order to function.
Source: PracticalParalegalism.com
Employability
The same attitude seems to be applied to this as to the Apprenticeship route. The same standards must be met, otherwise those who go through this very lengthy route will likely be almost unemployable and have made a very expensive mistake.
The status of Paralegals may be raised by the CILEx, but first an enquiry will be carried out, then a consultation, then a committee will no doubt be formed, then a vote, then a follow-up consultation etc. It could take decades. How many graduates will be lost or stuck in a rut in that time.
In the meantime, the promises made by the SRA about this new idea has been given great praise, the advice of the IoP being the document everything as a Paralegal from day one.
Hardly fair. Sensible. But hardly fair.
