CoL: modified LPC should replace training contract

  • Print
  • Comments (34)

Readers' comments (34)

  • I agree that the Training Contract should be scrapped altogether, because it is (1) a GREAT obstacle for many young (potential) lawyers, and (2) it places UK graduates in a disadvantaged position when compared to law graduates from US, Germany, France etc.
    1.) A vast majority of training contracts is provided by large City/US law firms... these are the most sought after and best remunerated training contracts. However, although these large City/US law firms seem to cover almost all aspects of law, their London offices predominantly focus on Corporate/Financial law. Therefore, if a student is really interested/specialised in the fields of EU/ International (public) Trade/ Public International Law, then he/she has to go to LPC, there do the 'City options' and then spend at least 1 year of the training contract in the area of commercial/corporate law before being able to transfer abroad... At the same time, these large (magic circle/US) law firms have offices also in Brussels/Geneva offering an entry level positions, conditioned upon being a member of the bar/qualified, thus not accessible to UK graduates (or those who completed LPC) while being available to counterparts from US/Belgium/Germany etc. This is unfortunate, as the top UK talent choosing to pursue non- M&A/Corporate/Financial law path does not have the opportunity to work for the best right away...--> waste of time & resources....

    2.) After my LL.B. I have completed a prestigious international trade law/public international law / EU regulatory law course outside of the UK. In a class of about 50 students, we were two UK graduates... both of us finished in top 3 of the class receiving summa cum laude/1st class degree... However at the end of the course we were not able to secure any meaningful legal job in the area, unlike our classmates from USA/Switzerland/ Germany/ Brazil etc., most of whom had worse grades, as all the relevant international organizations (WTO, UN, UNCTAD, EC...) condition the jobs in their legal departments upon being "qualified to practice law in their home country/ member of the bar" although no-work experience are often necessary... the same applies to all law firms in Brussels/Geneva specialising in these areas of law... which means we have to now go back to the UK ... do LPC (probably self-funded) and then try to 'persuade' the recruiters at City law firms that we have a genuine interest in commercial/financial law...even thought we just spent a lot of time and money demonstrating otherwise... this seems to be extremely challenging at the moment....

    Thus, my final observation is that, although scrapping the Training contract will not increase the number of positions available to young lawyers in the UK/London... it will enable many students to work as lawyers in Brussels (where there are many legal job opportunities) or international organizations, where they would be on equal footing with NQs from other jurisdictions... I am already very stressed/saddened about having to deviate from my area of interest/expertise for at least another 2 years... provided I will mange to get a TC at all....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • i also agree that LPC should be abolished. Training in a firm in far better than theory. Why have to study for something one does not want to specialise in eg business law and practice. from my experience i do not know anyone who specialised in the core subjects of the LPC. students usually complain about studying the core subjects

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This debate is pointless.
    People want the LPC scrapped just because they cant find a training contract and they want the title solicitor. If you have the title so what??
    At end of the day there are not enough solicitor jobs because too many people are trying to get in. Scrapping the training contract will not change that.
    The only sensible solution is to match supply with demand. What is required is to limit the LPC to those people that are able to get a training contract.
    Harsh as it may seem, some people just have to accept that they are not going to make it. That is the consequence of oversupply.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I passed The LPC. I found it was a scam and those with Training Contracts were allowed an easier ride. One of the most dodgy qualifications in a dodgy profession. Avoid going anywhere near it. become a dentist instead. Or work in a shop. You will do better.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (34)