Should Law be for LLB Students Only?
We all know here that
the law is the most powerful of schools for the imagination. No poet ever
interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer interprets the truth.
Jean Giraudoux
Jean Giraudoux
It is therefore my attempt to interpret the truth about
the desperate state in which the legal profession finds itself today. The
nature is the “glut” of law graduates who find themselves without reasonable
prospects of securing that prized training contract and a life in legal
practice.
It is a question which needs serious thoughts from the legal
profession as whole and I believe that it might provide relief, in the long
run, for the current lack of training contracts and other legal employment
opportunities which are, potentially, taken by those who chose to abandon their
first degrees to convert to Law. Non-law graduates are increasingly being
welcomed into the legal profession as they are perceived as bringing a broader
outlook and fresh perspective to law: Fact. If you haven’t already guessed it, or
indeed joined in, the debate centred on whether students who graduate with an
LLB make better lawyers than say.....historians, linguists and mathematicians.
Well, I don’t have an answer to that question but maybe to another question: “Should
the study of law be a preserve of only those who hold an LLB or not?” In light
of the difficulties that still ravage the legal profession; firm bankruptcies and closures, legal aid cuts,
scarce training contracts, universities are still churning out thousands graduates:
LLB, GDL and LPC.
As far back as 2009, Slaughter and May’s decision to close
applications from non-law students earlier than in previous years was met with
a barrage of responses from LLB students and non-law students and/or Graduates.
I approach that decision by the firm respectfully and cautiously, even though I
strongly back it and hope to bring it to the forefront again. I am an LLB (Hons)
holder and currently working towards finishing my LPC part-time course, sadly, I
am just like many others; I have not secured a training contract!! I came into
law because I have always dreamt of becoming a Lawyer and naturally I should be
on course to becoming one. Law is a passion to me and I will give 100%
commitment to the profession because of my passion for the subject. Now my argument is: “ How can you be a
Science Undergraduate, or a modern French Literary and Cultural Studies
graduate and be committed to the legal profession than the one who has always
been a “Lawyer” from the start?. How can a mere three week work placement
suddenly reinforce a commitment to pursuing a career in law? If the nature and diversity of the legal
experience had not worked out that way where would such a graduate go? Probably
back to his original intentions, potentially at the expense of a LLB graduate.
It is therefore unfortunate that students who have committed years of studying
the Law are finding themselves competing with those who simply have just
completed their Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL). Note that I say this with all
respect to the non-law graduate
I share the Slaughter and Mays response to attempt to limit
the number of those applicants who come from outside the law. I think this
would help the situation. The resulting bottleneck might have an impact on the
number of people graduating without prospects of ever practising law. If one of
the top firms thinks that way, then this confirms there is still a talent pool
within the law graduates and recruitment of such would be for the right reasons:
employing people who decided from start that they want to do law. The
availability of legal jobs is not keeping up with the supply of newly minted
LPC students comprising both types of candidates. It should adapt back to a
natural selection amongst those who are LLB qualified and let them compete
amongst each other to improve the quality of the Law. We should increase the
standards required for admission to the LPC not lowering it. The profession
should not try to sell the dream to be a lawyer to those not really interested
in working hard to see it achieved. Law
isn’t for everyone.
At present, there is
a focus on the current legal education “not fit for purpose” and I totally
agree with this observation. There
should be room for diversity in a variety of aspects of how law schools should
structure themselves in matters of tuition, curriculum, how many years the
degree takes and who should take it? The future lawyers are lawyers who will
practise in the advent of the Legal Services Act 2007 and Alternative Business
Structures (ABS) to change the provision of legal services and it is an
essential thing. But there is a problem of oversupply. Couple these changes
with my view of narrowing the entry criteria into the profession then a shift
in the numbers might occur. Once word
has filtered out to non-law students about changes I am proposing and the state
of the job market, maybe they’ll start looking elsewhere. This will deter students from taking degrees
unrelated to law and hoping to convert in future
An analogy which seems to make sense is that of a company which
is faced with over-capacity (LLB and non-law) has to close plants, we in law also
have to close or restrict other channels (non-law route) of entry into the
profession to let out pressure from over-supply. The logic here is to cut the incoming non-law,
thereby decreasing the amount of lawyers graduating. In my view this is a long
overdue correction in the market. The amount of jobs out there is not enough to
sustain the onslaught of conversion students on top of the LLBs.
The current model is not helping in the “glut” of over-supply
versus lack of training contracts.
