Eversheds to offer condensed LPC and training contract
Eversheds is rolling out a groundbreaking two-year pilot that will blend the LPC and the training contract.
For the unique scheme to run the SRA has had to waive two key policies for the first time. It will allow Eversheds to run a training contract in conjunction with part-time study over two years instead of the normal three and will also let trainees undertake the Professional Skills Course before full completion of the LPC.
Everdsheds head of resourcing Nicky Bizzell said: “People want to qualify sooner. University’s becoming more expensive and taking a year out to do the LPC can be too much of a struggle with costs. Our scheme will allow them to qualify earlier and earn earlier.
“We found that some trainees would do the LPC quite a while before starting their training contract. Our programme is a way of making their learning more relevant for them.”
The training programme will operate by allowing a maximum of 16 graduates to complete their LPC electives during their training contract after studying the core subjects at BPP Law School.
The scheme will kick off next August, just a year after the conclusion of the SRA’s 2008 work-based learning pilot, which explored assessment methods and alternative qualification routes without a training contract (TheLawyer.com, 8 June).
Two continuing strands of the SRA pilot, involving paralegals and combined degrees, will finalise in 2012 as part of the Legal Education and Training Review.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (29)
Anonymous | 13-Dec-2011 11:39 am
Another nail in the coffin for professionalism. I don’t recall having enough spare time during my training contract to fit in a year’s worth of LPC study, so this is diluting training. A core identifying trait of professions is ‘long’ and specialised education and training. Six years to qualify as a doctor, six years as a solicitor are what traditionally have placed them ahead in status terms of school teachers, nurses etc. The CPE undermined this by cutting the minimum legal training down to 4 years and this ‘initiative’ shaves another year off that (presuming that CPE qualifiers will be eligible) - three years is one year less than the training needed to teach at primary school. So we’ll have solicitors using that title after just one year of full-time classroom study and then two years serving an apprenticeship with some study intermingled. Seems that the SRA have made clear how they intend to respond to the threat of ‘Tesco Law’ - and it certainly isn’t by insisting that solicitors can stand tall as much better educated providers of legal services. Wonder how I would react if a surgeon told me, just before prepping for an operation, “I followed the fast track route, a degree in Media Studies - much easier access than medicine - and then a one year conversion course, two years on the job training in hospital and now here I am about to undertake your operation - now just relax, please”.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dude | 13-Dec-2011 11:46 am
Actually i am a big boy in small pants with deep pockets.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13-Dec-2011 1:08 pm
"with deep pockets"
ha!
thank you for proving my point...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13-Dec-2011 4:31 pm
Anonymous | 13-Dec-2011 11:39 am
Why would it matter as long as the surgeon was good enough to do his/her job? If someone is talented enough, they'll have a good career. If not, then they won't. The path taken to get there is irrelevant.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13-Dec-2011 5:05 pm
Surely the best strategy would be to use the ILEX system?
I'm sure I read that ILEX solicitors are better at their jobs than anyone else. Therefore why doesn't Eversheds become the first 100% ILEX firm?
I suspect I'm about to get pelted with rotten fruit.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13-Dec-2011 5:55 pm
"Three years is one year less than the training needed to teach at primary school".
No it's not. The PGCE and GTP can both be taken with no previous formal training in education and both take one year- the GTP is also training on the job from day one. So the minimum training needed to teach in a primary school is one year less than the Shed's new LPC/TC combo.
And don't get me started on the fact that your comment is rather derogatory of primary school teachers- I have a feeling that you would flounder, Anon at 11.39, if faced with a room full of 32 7 year olds for a day.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 13-Dec-2011 8:16 pm
Have to ask yourself how do you find out that the surgeon or lawyer isn't very good? See how many operations/cases are messed up? Surgeon incompetence would probably show up quite quickly, but negative impact may not be reversible. Lawyer, may take much longer for errors to show up, depending upon the nature of the work. So let's experiment - see how short we can make training to be a solicitor before the skill base of the profession is fundamentally undermined?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Dec-2011 0:28 am
Two points : (a) why does every string of comments turn into a slanging match (personally I think it is characteristic of lawyers being bullied over achieving school kids with a chip on their shoulder) and (b) lawyers in the City work alongside very experienced business men and bankers, making them younger when they are doing this (by cutting out the LPC year) would not seem to me to be what clients would want. A year to mature and learning to hit the ground running is a good thing in my book. I'm no massive fan of the LPC, but it has a role. Further, considering gdl students don't study corporate law until the LPC, they will lack the necessary tools doing it this way until the end of their training contract.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
j | 14-Dec-2011 10:48 am
The GDL was hard and demanding and took brain power, hard work and grit. The LPC was a waste of time. I had an attendance rate of about 30% and got a distinction without too much effort, because it was easy.
Then I came to work and realised that I could forget everything I didn't know anyway, get down to it and learn on the job - properly.
What law did you learn at uni you use today? Or that you haven't supplemented immeasurably on the job?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Dec-2011 11:10 am
To anonymous @ 11.39. I agree that there is a hypothetical risk that quality declines, but quality itself isn’t dependent upon duration of training. Reducing the duration may simply arise from greater efficiency (improved tuition, more focussed/practical experience, experiential learning) which could result in cost savings (to firm and student) but also improved output (i.e. trainee quality). I don’t think comparisons with other professions really assists unless you could actually benchmark the quality of training over the industries and demonstrate the effect of duration on quality. What will be interesting is to see how Sheds intend to monitor performance of the “guinea pig” trainees and how they plan to compare any ‘results’ with those trainees following the traditional route. The fear is that at the end of the experiment no one really understands what the pros or cons are of both routes (other than financial).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment