‘Getting access to the talent’ – The profession struggles to react as sweeping training reform looms

Thomas Alan reports on a lively LB debate on training the solicitors of tomorrow

With the new Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) primed for a 2021 launch; a new generation of lawyers entering the industry; and the partnership model under increasing strain, the legal education sector is set for its largest upheaval in a generation.

To assess these forces, in November Legal Business teamed up with education providers BARBRI International and The College of Legal Practice, to gather 50 senior guests comprising law firm leaders, educationalists and heads of HR for a debate on the opportunities and impact of reforms designed to open routes to qualification.

Julie Brannan (pictured), Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) director of education and training, opened the forum, setting out the stall for the regulator’s controversial reforms: ‘We can open the market to flexibility and diversity of training. We know there are people who want to qualify but they get stuck. This is an opportunity for businesses to get access to that talent.’

The SQE’s introduction will supplant a system of 30 years, and much has been made of lawyers’ reticence to change. ‘The sky didn’t fall in,’ argued Brannan, drawing a comparison with the move to allow non-law graduates to qualify as lawyers, suggesting that the UK needs to reassert its global reputation for innovation.

Panellist, Pinsent Masons senior partner Richard Foley addressed the oncoming change in diplomatic tones: ‘Is the sky going to fall in? No. Will there be unintended consequences from good intentions? Yes. Will they be manageable? Of course.’

But discussion soon turned to the opportunities provided by the shake-up. Clifford Chance joint head of corporate, London, Melissa Fogarty argued the existing training contract increasingly struggles to create ‘holistic’ lawyers, and that reform could provide a chance to bring candidates into a given practice more quickly and flexibly. Network Rail general counsel for routes Dan Kayne echoed Fogarty’s point, arguing the need for ‘O-shaped lawyers’ with wider expertise. Meanwhile, Matthew Kellett, UK financial services law head at EY, suggested the Big Four accountancy firms were better placed to harness the SQE, given their history of recruiting from a wider talent pool than traditional law firms.

Supporters of reforms argue that the solicitor qualification can also become a more generic kitemark with enhanced currency in business circles, similar to an accountancy qualification. However, the panel agreed that the legal industry needed as well to move beyond its hierarchical split between lawyers and ‘non-lawyers’, with the latter camp operating as second-class citizens. Going as far as to question the value of the rank of ‘partner’, Foley commented: ‘As long as those who have qualified as lawyers own the business, you’ll never create the idea firms are about diverse teams of people who deliver solutions.’

There was also some disagreement about how broad a lawyer’s expertise should be. Fogarty, for example, was sceptical about notions that lawyers should write code. Kayne, meanwhile, argued that any change was unlikely if law firm leadership did not buy in to the incoming reforms.

The perceived inertia of Big Law was something the panel was challenged on, particularly given the lack of conspicuous preparation for the SQE so far. One of the few examples of firms gearing up for the changes is a so-called ‘consortium’ of six firms, comprising Slaughter and May, Hogan Lovells, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Norton Rose Fulbright, Linklaters and Herbert Smith Freehills. But the group is making every effort to mirror as closely as possible the current regime.

‘The regulator is opening this up for businesses to shape training for their own business objectives,’ The College of Law group chief executive Neville Carter pointed out to the panel. ‘The lack of models coming forward is frankly surprising.’

Such new models would not only diversify routes to qualification, according to the reform’s advocates, but improve the industry’s woeful record on social mobility. However, there was no sense among the panel that the reforms would serve as a silver bullet. Fogarty argued issues like diversity and mental health went far deeper than education, while another panellist argued after the debate that ‘anyone who thinks education reform will solve diversity needs to be locked up’.

The sense among many is the SRA could be creating a rod for its own back on social mobility, as the regulator would be forever judged on an issue that the profession has persistently struggled to resolve. Part of the new regime’s success in social mobility will be likely to rest on its ability to attract new training providers. In one apparent boost, the College of Legal Practice has been set up to target the market in a joint effort from the College of Law Australia and New Zealand and the US-based BARBRI, two major players in legal education.

Regardless of entrenched views, as Brannan noted in her opening remarks, the SQE remains set for its 2021 launch. Its advocates are as impassioned as ever but the profession as a whole is still struggling to keep up.

For broader discussion of the issues arising from the sweeping overhaul of legal training in a generation, read ‘Regime change’. See the first issue of 2020 for a full report of the debate.

thomas.alan@legalease.co.uk