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

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.