Lawyers must show adaptability in a world full of change

Career development seminars aimed at lawyers are forever beating the drum for the need to change and move with the times. It seems that “versatility” and “adaptability” are the new legal watchwords (apparently ‘commercial awareness’ alone doesn’t cut it any longer).

Chief amongst the areas in which they need to show this adaptability is how they manage information. Lawyers need to competently juggle an ever-increasing array of materials and sources and across a wide range of formats. Of course, technology can be both a blessing and a curse in this regard. (Isn’t it always?).

Lawyers need to be conversant with electronic and conventional book and paper sources and they cannot afford to ignore one format over another. It’s clear that offices are slowly (very slowly in some cases) moving away from their reliance on paper, but the realisation of the ‘paperless office’ is still a frightfully long way off.

Despite the lack of instantaneous ‘inline search’, conventional book sources still play a vital role in legal practice and legal research. Sometimes, browsing or thumbing through a volume can help you get the ‘feel’ of an unfamiliar area of law and help you focus in on appropriate keywords that can then be used in an electronic search. After all, searching electronically only ever works efficiently when you’ve identified the right words to search for!

We’ve recently made a conscious effort to vastly reduce the amount we print. It’s interesting that the transition was far less painful than people feared and to see how readily people adopted and accepted it. Now we just need to focus on getting employers to recycle more waste besides paper.

While I’m on the subject, why on earth do some law firms insist on having their air conditioning cranked up to such a high level that staff need to sit their shivering with their jackets buttoned-up? Practising law doesn’t absolve people from the need to be as environmentally friendly as possible.

But I digress. For what it’s worth, academia still over-emphasises traditional paper sources which doesn’t exactly help students when they get into practice. The Legal Practice Course is particularly bad in this regard. For instance, it still assumes firms opt to use hard copies of lengthy reference materials over electronic versions. In my experience at least, that’s utter nonsense.

No matter how unshakable you are on using conventional paper sources, when you’re dealing with lengthy pieces of legislation, for example, it simply doesn’t make any sense to use the paper version. Have you seen the full size of the Companies Act 2006 recently? Why on earth are we forcing students to lump around hard copies? Heck, they’ll be brining personal injury claims for lumbar and shoulder injuries before we know it!

We’re in quite an interesting, transitional phase with not just vast electronic databases of cases and legislation but electronic versions of conventional academic law books and practitioner texts. When you combine that with the burgeoning popularity of ‘Bring Your Own Device’ (BYOD) access to this content across a range of devices such as e-readers, tablets and smartphones is not just possible, but happening. Yes, many law firms still regard BYOD with about as much relish as pro bono work, but there are some avant-garde players out there.

As this transition continues, lawyers must stay on their toes and continue to evolve and adapt to the changing environment of information sources. While it’s vital they embrace the benefits of modern technology, younger lawyers in particular must be careful not to ignore traditional sources or downplay their importance.

Studying for a law exam - a cry for help

It’s been a while since I did a mailbag feature, so here’s to turning that around. ;-)

The following email plopped into my inbox a couple of weeks ago from a law student panicked by the prospect of open book exams:

Just found your law blog after having a complete mare over open book exams.
I appreciate this is a completely cheeky and out of the blue question,
but I don't suppose you happen to have those old company law notes you
mention in your revision entry do you?! Completely terrified about it,
have no idea what I'm doing or how to answer question from the second
semester, and generally worried I'm not going to get a 2:1 and thereby
miss my TC offer!

Totally understand you telling me to piss off, but thanks for the
hints and tips anyway :)

Jodie G

For those wondering, my “revision entry” was this post back in 2009.

I stand by the techniques I propounded there – certainly for closed book exams, anyway – and there isn’t really much I can add.

Open book exams are a bit of a different animal. Quite obviously, they call for a slightly different focus with less of the course material committed to memory and more focus on meticulous organisation and knowledge of your permitted materials. But that’s not to say you don’t need to be able to recall a large proportion of the content without being reliant on your books.

Your permitted materials are an aide memoire – not a memory replacement.

Jodie’s email didn’t really inspire me to respond (nope, not even to tell her to piss off). Amongst other things, the experience of a law degree is about trying different study methods to see what works for you, learning from your mistakes and emerging the other side richer for the experience.

As I said to a student colleague recently, “I don’t want to rob you of the learning experience”. I think the subtext there is blatantly clear.

For what it’s worth, I did have the revision notes of which I spoke in the post but they were a) tailored for my course and not Jodie’s, b) the fruit of my exam-time labours (why should I share them) and c) let me ask you this: would you, even as a desperate law student, risk asking a complete stranger on the internet for revision notes of which you have no assurance of quality, accuracy or anything else?

Who’d do that? It’s scary that someone who’d risk trying that has a training contract offer. (Sorry, that’s how I feel).

Btw – “a complete mare”. Excuse me? Is this new street talk?

Update: I’ve Googled it and thanks to Wiktionary, it seems it’s a colloquial contraction of “nightmare”.

(UK, colloquial) (Shortening of nightmare) A nightmare; a frustrating or terrible experience.

I'm having a complete mare today.

Well, there you go.

Essays win prizes… well, a place on the LPC

I see from my inbox that Young Lawyer have been banging the drum for their 2013 essay competition.  Must be that time of year again, eh? 

The question this year is:  What is the role of lawyers in protecting 
access to justice post-LASPO?

The prize is well suited to those with self-loathing disorders. 

I’m sure any student would prefer the cash equivalent!!

Btw - I had to Google “LASPO”.  Should I be ashamed? 

Stating the obvious – postgraduate study makes a HUGE difference

^{Darn it – there was no electronic version (at least not that I could find). Still, that scanner’s got to justify its existence somehow! ;-)}

Anyhow, let me run that first line past you again.

Students who want to stand out in the job market now need postgraduate degrees, says a think-tank.

Really?

It took a think tank to figure this one out?  Is this another case of “more tank than think”?  Which politician was it who coined that one?  ;-)

This isn’t any kind of revelation at all; graduates have been experiencing the “degree inflation” phenomenon first hand for several years.  Quite why it’s popped up again suddenly as “news” is beyond me.

When I was towards the tail end of my LL.M, I immediately noticed what a difference having a postgrad qualification made.  In fact, my employer explicitly told me it was my postgrad degree which made the difference in them hiring me over other candidates (helped in no small part by my quirky dissertation). 

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that postgraduate study made a huge difference to my employability.  Sadly, it’s gone from being the icing on your curriculum vitae cake to being a quasi pre-requisite now.

And from things I’ve heard anecdotally, I know I’m not the only one who’s witnessed this.

How to improve your grades at law school

^{No, getting an iPad won’t help you.}

I received the following email from a stressed (and struggling) law student a couple of weeks ago.

Dear Sir,

I am a second year Law LLB student. Actually, I have been very worried with my progress at university. In my first year I got very poor marks- I got 2 3rds and 1 2:2. This year I got my semester 1 marked assignments: Tort 52%; Civil Litigation 52%; Evidence Law 42% and Land 41 %. These marks are very worrying for me. I want to achieve at least a 2:1 Law degree. Will I be able to achieve a 2:1 with these poor marks? What do I do to get a 2:1? 

The remarks for my essay are that I am too descriptive though I have a good knowledge of the question asked and I give some good cases. What should I do not to be descriptive? Could you give me an example about this, please. 

I would be much grateful if you could advise me on this matter. 

Many Thanks.

Kind Regards,
[Law Student]

Deary me.  What’ya think folks?  Is our law student in trouble? What should the advice be? Is it too late for a second year law student to pull it around and get (at least) a 2:1? Heck, should a second year law student even be asking these kinds of questions?

I responded:

You shouldn't be too downcast over your grades at this stage; there is still time to do something about it and a 2:1 is not out of reach.  Clearly, though, your grades need to improve considerably for you to attain that.

I think the feedback you have received from your lecturers has already told you where you are going wrong; you are being too descriptive and not providing enough analysis of the law.

Simply stating what the law is is relatively simple and will not allow you to achieve the higher grades you're aiming for.

What you usually need to do in an essay type question is to critically analyse the law and set out suggestions for improvement.  Think about shortcomings in the way legislation has been drafted or problems resulting from how the common law has developed.  How could the law be improved?  Conversely, consider what could be argued in favour of leaving the law as it is or allowing it to develop via the common law rather than enacting new legislation.

Of course, it's essential you tailor your answer to the question being asked.  Consider the precise wording of the question very carefully.  It sounds obvious, but it's surprising how many students don't read the question carefully enough.

When answering problem questions, you should be extremely careful to apply the law to the facts you are given and not just state what the law is.  The higher marks here are for effective application of the law, and not mere description.  

Don't be tempted to needlessly mention as many cases as you can recall in any given area of law; you should limit them to only those which are relevant to the facts at hand.  Equally, don't get bogged down describing the facts of the case.  It is the legal principle it established or its value as a precedent which is important, rather than the circumstances of the case.

The scariest thing is that the student came back with a second (and arguably more worrying question).  I might share that at some point, too.

College Students Present: How to become a solicitor

(Plus tips on rubbing your own belly for camera).  And that’s always a good thing, right?

And…. action!

Yes, this video extravaganza from a group of college students charts the training pathway involved in becoming a solicitor.  It seems like one needs:

1.  GCSEs,
 
2.  A levels,
(no previous knowledge of law is preferred)  (are universities really still saying that?

3.  Then a degree (a qualifying law degree or a non-qualifying law degree any old one will do when combined with the GDL,

4.  The legal practice course,

5.  And once that’s completed, a training contract for 2 years. 

Well, I’m glad they cleared that up.
Please tell me the careers advisor didn’t put them up to this?

Btw - hat tip to Legal Cheek for flagging this up in the first place.  (Never let it be said that I don’t give credit where it’s due.)

I took a particular interest in it when I realised the college at which this home video howler was filmed wasn’t a million miles away from where I used to live at one time.

I absolutely dread to think what this part of the syllabus making this video fell under.

Anyhow, I’ve spent the last few minutes snickering at the guy on the left who takes great pleasure (I mean really great, judging by the look on his face) at rubbing his own belly in the background. 

^{Yeah baby}

But he’s not the only one to get in on the belly-rubbing action.

All we need now is for someone to pull a silly face.  Ah – there we go.

It’s strange how none of the girls partook in the silliness. Must be a maturity thing.

Wasn’t college just great? 

Reconceptualising the over-supply problem...

From Roll on Friday 08/06/12:

Michael Todd QC, chairman of the Bar Council, claimed on Wednesday that over-recruitment of students wasn't doing the profession, the students or social mobility any favours. Todd said it was a "great concern" that law schools were pumping out a hefty oversupply of grads with "no realistic prospect of pupillage". And he worried about those chucking £16,000 at a qualification which, for those who fail to obtain pupillage, adds little to employability.

Shhhh! Shhhh!

Michael, just because something’s painfully true and glaringly obvious, doesn’t mean it should be said out loud. Yes, there is a massive disparity between the number of students studying on the BVC (ahem) BPTC and LPC compared to the number of pupillages and training contracts available. Oh my GENTLE JESUS – are lawyers a dying breed?

But why the sudden fuss? We’ve had this sorry state of affairs for years and years now. Surely law schools haven’t suddenly grown a conscience overnight?

What happened to the ol’ chestnuts, “it’s a worthwhile qualification in its own right” or “the experience will prove invaluable regardless of your future career (if any)”. Can’t they be dragged out and polished up a bit?

Plus, can’t we just accept that students study law for a variety of reasons (however misguided some might be) and that qualifying as a solicitor or barrister might never be on the agenda of many? There are plenty of warnings out there now. If students are still going ahead and enrolling, maybe they just damn well want to.

Best exam advice ever

Judging from the stats on my blog at the moment, there are a lot of students (and not just law students) who are desperate (I mean really desperate!!) to find some kind of magic answer to:

• how to revise super-effectively and craft great answers in exams;
• knowing what’s going to come up in their exams;
• fluking their exams with or without any revisions if all else fails; and
• ending the months (years?) of studying torment because, you know, it’s all got a bit too much.

Hmm - must be that time of year or something!

This year, there's been a big focus on question spotting for some reason.

Trying to question spot and limiting your preparation is always a dangerous practice. I didn’t do it for any of my LLB, LLM or LPC exams and I’m still thankful I had the sense not to try.  I remember my biology teacher at A level bizarrely boasting that “we’re in the business of question spotting” (I think he fancied himself as a bit of an expert at it).

Sadly he proved to be wildly myopic (and I think was looking the wrong way down his binoculars).  When the class’ results came out it wasn’t pretty. 

Weren’t A levels just the worst?!?

So, really, don’t shoot yourself in the foot by trying to question spot. It’s just not worth the risk.

Still, if you’re a poor desperate student cramming for all you’re worth and fancy giving it a whirl, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

King’s Student Law Review

For those who aren’t in the know (and in the interests of karma), I thought it would be well worth flagging up the King’s Student Law Review, the existence of which I was alerted to recently.

So what’s the big deal?

Well, firstly, it’s an excellent peer-reviewed journal written by students for students everyone.

It describes itself as an:

online academic publication managed by students of the King's College London School of Law. The Review seeks to publish high-quality legal scholarship written by undergraduate and graduate students at King's and other leading law schools across the globe.

If you aren’t a King’s student and your law school has a law school magazine which is more like this, have no fear. The KSLR isn’t locked behind an expensive paywall; its open access policy means everyone can access and download the material completely free of charge – just as God intended. If you feel a bit funny accessing ‘free-as-in-free’ material, it’s also available via HeinOnline, for you old-school sticklers out there.

Either way, it’s well worth checking out.

Secondly, they’re accepting articles for publication.  Yep, all you law students out there – that’s where you come in.

Working on the basis that practise makes perfect, writing an article for the KSLR would provide you with a great opportunity to improve your legal writing whilst getting your name out there. Plus, for those undergraduates keeping an eye on the future (that’s more or less everyone, right?) it’s something else which might elevate your CV over those of your peers.

That’s not the only incentive, though, as for each edition, the author of the best judged article is awarded £250.

Oh yes. 

The requested word count for each article is between 5,000 to 10,000 words. Like I said, practise makes perfect.

Still, if that sounds a bit over-ambitious for you, submissions are also welcome for shorter pieces (around 1,000 words) for their various blogs in the following areas:

• European Law
• Legal Theory
• Human Rights
• Constitutional Law
• Commercial Law
• Criminal Law
• International Law
• Legal Practice, Procedure and Profession

Submissions for the next edition of the KSLR are due by 29th February 2012, 23:59 GMT, so, you know, you might want to get your skates on!

Submissions for the blogs are welcome at any time.

You can find submission guidelines on their website at http://www.kslr.org.uk/. 

While you’re at it, why not follow them on twitter via @KCLSLR, too?

Life as a modern law student - a few thoughts

On the back of my half-hearted ‘back to school’ series, I’ve been thinking a lot recently about just what an awful time it is to be a law student (or any kind of student for that matter).  Not to put anybody off, of course, (but seriously - think carefully).

Let’s face it: graduate jobs of any description are hard enough to come by right now.  I know a couple of people who are/were tackling the LPC part time and have put it on hold half way through because they’re so fearful of ploughing in the rest of the fees and then coming out the other side with a useless diploma and no chance of a training contract.

Understandably, there is a lot of concern that many would-be students are taking the attitude that going to university is simply not worth the expense, hassle and stress.

The Law Gazette report this:

The biggest fall in university applications in more than 30 years has seen the number of candidates applying to study law drop by a record 5.2%, according to figures released by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service.

Last year 13,858 people applied to study law at 26 universities that supplied figures to UCAS, but this year the number applying to start their course in autumn 2012 fell to 13,139.

Things aren’t even looking good for graduate recruitment schemes at the moment.  A few years ago, graduate training schemes were all the rage for students with almost any degree.  What a difference 2 or 3 years make.  Your average graduate is now more likely to get a bucketful of smelly stuff from a rocking horse than get accepted onto one of those programs.

Not long ago, a law degree was meant to be one of the more useful and versatile degrees out there, and one that would stand you in good stead for a wide range of graduate careers.  I’m not sure that holds true right now.

Other ‘friends of friends’ are considering jumping ship, all of whom are at various stages of their legal education. Right on cue, I’ve been fascinated to read about US blawgger Katie Luper who recently finished law school and jumped straight on an engineering course.  Kudos to her for that.  I don’t think many law graduates would have the guts to do that.  I know I wouldn’t.

So all in all, it’s an uncertain, scary time, folks. But if you’re a prospective uni student with absolutely no idea which path to take, do the responsible thing: flip a coin and let fate decide.

You’ll thank me for it.

For construction jobs try visiting Mane Recruitment.

Studying Law – Intentions versus Reality

It’s back to school time, kids - law school style. For the countless students out there, it’s time to dust off your textbooks, dig out your laptop and get your sweet little cheeks down to your university’s campus for enrolment.

For newbie students, or seasoned pros who should know better, here’s the Law Actually run down on typical law student kit, what it should be used for, and what you’ll probably end up doing with it.

Item	What you’re meant to do	What you actually do
Textbooks	Read them and, you know, learn about some lawwy type stuff.	Use them as expensive doors stops, or stack them up as a bedside table.
Casebooks	Read the relevant bits of jurisprudence to save you dragging your sorry ass down to the law library to read the full case (you know… like you were meant to)	Doorstop, thick coaster or propping up that dodgy shelf.
Laptop	Type up all of those first class scholarly papers.	Surfing porn, f***book and twitter, and researching whether you’ve picked up an STD as a fresher.
Legal Dictionary	Remind yourself of those legal terms and bits of Latin which you really should remember	Provide an ideal environment for dust bunnies to thrive.
Study Guide	Use it as a pathfinder to help ease your way into a subject, or whilst outlining revision notes.	Crack it open in sheer desperation when you realise your 3000 word paper is due in in 4 hours’ time and you haven’t got the foggiest.
That money your parents gave you	Spend it wisely and carefully on essentials	Blow it down the student union on your first night there!
That credit card you took out for emergencies	The clue’s in the name – though it should have come stamped with ‘for emergency use only’.	Give in to temptation and buy that Xbox 360, Kinect, widescreen plasma TV... hot tub?
Study session in the library	Researching / writing / slowly returning to life having snuck out of the early lecture after nearly pickling your brain the night before down ‘the union’.	Ogling the tastier members of your class / chatting with buddies
Printer	Printing out those scholarly papers.	Print out those embarrassing pictures of that night you got really wasted so you can pin it up on your dorm room wall. Better be quick, before the ink dries up in the cartridges!!

LPC spam

I received an email a while back from ‘Young Lawyer’ about the LPC course run by BPP. I didn’t think much of it at the time.

But having cleared out my inbox recently (I go through phases when I’ll delete 1000 or so emails en masse), I came across it again, and this time it grated on me a bit.

Seriously... spam for the LPC – what’s the world coming to?

In fact, it reminded me an awful lot of the time when I bought an iron from Amazon. A few days after it had arrived, I received an email from Amazon with a product list of their 20 top selling irons.

I’d just bought the frickin’ thing – what did they think I wanted? TWO irons? One for each hand?

Geez, Louise.

But this isn’t their only LPC-themed mass mailing. I also stumbled across a “write an essay for their competition and win a place on the LPC” email from 2010.

OK, never mind the fact there was a second email, the LPC is the PRIZE?

I’ve always thought of the LPC as more a punishment than a prize. Don’t tell me writing the essay was the treat?

Law School Magazine

I hate the pompous drivel that make up so many law school magazines - created and edited by the usual Machiavellian chancers who will no doubt go on to become parish councillors in later life.

Other law schools don’t even bother with that.  They just dump a stack of copies of the Student Law Review on a table in the foyer and leave it at that.

But enough is enough.  There’s a gap in the market which needs a-filling and I think I’m the right kind of cynical sod to do it. 

So here’s the first edition of ‘The Law School Today’ – the law school magazine with a difference. I think we’ve got a cracking line up of features.

Is it time for legal education to join the 21st Century?

I still find it astounding that here we are, well into the 21^st century, and Legal Practice Course (LPC) providers are still treating technology as an afterthought. For instance, why on earth are the core skills of writing and drafting on the LPC taught and examined through handwritten exercises instead of using computers?

The same goes with research. The paper versions of Halsbury’s are cute and all that, but lawyers of the future shouldn’t groomed in becoming experts in carting those unwieldy tombs around. They should be embracing technology and the advantages it offers them.

Netbooks are as cheap as chips and there’s no reason why exams which use computers rather than the traditional answer books offer any more potential for cheating than the current system which obsesses with pens and paper. If providers are worried about cheating they can block access to the internet, disable wireless functionality and superglue up USB ports if they’re so inclined.

Skills on the Legal Practice Course and the Bar Professional Training Course, should be taught and examined in the context in which students will find themselves once they’ve left the cosy nest of academia. LPC providers love to proclaim how their course ‘mimics reality’ of legal practice and some even go as far as calling tutors ‘supervising principals’. I don’t think anyone’s taken-in by the label for a moment.

But with all this supposed focus on practicality, why is there an obsession with handwritten scripts still holding sway? How often these days does a lawyer mark up a draft contract by hand and send it back via snail-mail as a travelling draft? The world has had a funny thing called email for quite some time now.

It can’t be right that fundamental skills and functionality that students will need out there in the big bad world is given such short shrift. Here’s a classic example. I remember on the LPC that after we’d finished our initial drafting exercises (by hand, of course), the lecturer introduced the ‘track changes’ feature in Word during a rushed 5 minutes at the end of the session. Looking around the room, it was clear some people were seeing this ‘track changes’ for the first time which is scary in itself, but the real crime is committed by LPC providers by not focussing on the skill of drafting within context of a word processing program. Here was functionality that students would be using day-to-day out there in practice, yet it was treated as an afterthought. And having spoken to others on other LPC courses, their experiences were exactly the same.

And this isn’t just hyperbolic venting; there is a real impact on the future of the profession at play here. If would-be lawyers aren’t being trained in the use of fundamental tools of their work, something is clearly wrong. I remember several students were amazed that they could change the case of text in Microsoft Word once it had been typed. One student (who was actually in practice as a paralegal at the time) admitted that in that situation, she used to delete the relevant text and then retype it in CAPITALS. That is just scary. Lawyers still routinely bill per hour; would her potential clients be getting good value for money whilst she went through her deletion and retyping sequence?

Granted, the practice of law is regarded much like driving and driving tests; you are taught the basics so you’re proficient enough to get out there and develop your skills where you really learn the art of the skill over time. That takes a lot of practise and LPC providers teaching candidates how to be ‘good lawyer’ is an aspiration rather than an realistically achievable goal. But practising word processing skills likely to be needed in practice can most certainly be taught in a classroom.

Law schools often drag experts in from Lexis and Westlaw to impart a few tricks of the trade to students. Why isn’t the same done with word processing programs? Maybe time should be dedicated to teaching the ins and outs of complex multilevel lists and how to edit them without losing your mind. How about the teaching students the art of using cross-referencing functionality which can update references to clauses in an agreement as they are subsequently amended? Wouldn’t that make so much sense?

It’s such a no-brainer. Ensuring LPC students are proficient with word processing programs rather than just assuming it, would allow future lawyers to minimise the amount of the time and effort involved in wrestling with software that they don’t properly know how to use and concentrate on, you know, actually practicing law.

I’m still tickled by the fact my LPC foundations manual told me how to compose an email, how I should deal with snotty responses from fellow professionals, as well as telling me I should get some fresh air at lunch time to manage my stress levels. But using core functionality of computer programs which are mission-critical to a lawyer’s day job didn’t even get a look-in.

Isn’t it time the LPC joined the 21^st century?

SRA passes up chance of aptitude tests for LPC

From Roll on Friday 04/02/11:

Kaplan Law School has had its proposed aptitude test for the LPC squashed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). That's despite hopes that an entry test might raise the quality of the LPC intake and stop less able students throwing away good money on a course that would not ultimately lead anywhere.

Amen to that.

Sadly even [the] mildest of barriers to entry was too draconian for the SRA, which has refused to validate the move. So, rather predictably and depressingly, just about anyone with a degree and a pot of gold will still be able to start the LPC this year.

I realise that entry tests have been mooted for the LPC for years – and even more so since the massive supply/demand quotients of students / training contracts fell so far out of kilter. But this just seems like a really, really good idea. Yes, it might mean more stress, it might be gruelling, it might slap some people down and prevent them from immediately progressing to the next stage in their careers. But let’s face it: if it saves a bunch of students from blowing 8 to 15 grand for a big fat nothing, maybe it’s better being cruel to be kind.

Just a thought.

Shorter, Super Intense LPC: When 7 into 9 just doesn’t go

From The Lawyer 10/01/11:

BPP Law School has bowed to student demands by becoming the first LPC provider to launch a fast-track LPC to all students, beginning in August 2011.

The condensed course will cram the standard nine-month offering into seven months, but will cost the same (£12,500 in London) and require students to have shorter study breaks, working through the summer and winter holidays.

BPP dean Peter Crisp said: “We’re moving away from the mindset that programmes should be designed around the needs of the ­faculty rather than around the needs of students.

“I think students are going to welcome the opportunity to do the course in a shorter timeframe and will welcome the flexibility, enjoy the intensity of the programme and be ­better prepared for work.”

Enjoy the intensity? Are you kidding me?

Be better prepared for work? Well in the sense they’re absolutely ran into the ground, thoroughly burnt out and on the cusp of an unhealthy psychosis, yes, this new super-intense LPC will prepare students beautifully for the world of work.

 

The new course will differ from the accelerated ­consortium LPC as it will use the same content as the standard LPC without the City firms’ tailor-made additional subjects. It will, however, have some extra weekly preparation work and face-to-face teaching sessions.

The course will run twice yearly, but access will be ­limited by a minimum entry requirement of a 2:1 degree [and a propensity for torture presumably?]

Never mind that; I think it should come with a compulsory psychological assessment!!!

 

Crisp added: “It will be intensive and not necessarily for all students, as some will find it a struggle and need more time to absorb information to apply skills.”

The fast-track course is subject to validation by the SRA.

I don’t really get the point of this course; 7 months rather than 9 months is hardly a huge saving. Are those 8 weeks really that important?

And isn’t the LPC intense enough? The regular course isn’t exactly sedate. I can understand the desire to get through it as quickly as possible but I think this is an instance where 7 into 9 just won’t go.

I think the LPC is one of those get-through-it-at-all-costs courses, where there are few points awarded for style.  But is it really a good idea to make things even more difficult for yourself going hell-for-leather to get through the academic phase of your career as quickly as possible?

Anyhow, as an aside, some of the comments in the article are superbly funny:

“Great, that means all those LPC graduates without a Training Contract can get on the dole 2 months sooner”

You cynic!

 

“softies the lot of them ... :)
bring back the LSF [Law Society Finals] - let's have some exams worthy of the name; they'll soon be giving away legal qualifications inside cereal boxes”

Ah... no post would be complete without a “in my day” type of comment! ;-)

 

“Requirement of a 2:1 degree in what? basketweaving, applied drama, needlework? Come on, everyone knows that a 2:1 these days is no guarantee of quality. Peter Crisp needs to wake up and realise that BPP know nothing about creating lawyers, only making money.”

Oooh. Talk about lighting the blue touch paper...

Reforming Legal Education: Death of the Training Contract

From The Law Gazette 24/02/10:

Could a new holistic approach to training solicitors, being trialed by Northumbria University Law School in partnership with national firm Irwin Mitchell, be the future of legal education?

The Master of Law (Solicitor) degree combines the academic, vocational and training stages of qualification as a solicitor. At the end of the full-time, five-year degree course graduates can apply to the SRA for enrolment as a solicitor.

The course, made possible by an SRA initiative and designed to pilot work-based learning as a means of increasing access to the legal profession, incorporates a qualifying law degree with the legal practice course and work-based learning replacing the training contract.

Increasing access to the profession is no doubt important in the light of recent surveys that have revealed the legal profession to be drawn from increasingly narrow sections of society, but could this new form of qualification create a two-tier system in which some are regarded as inferior?

Or will this route catch on and herald the end of the training contract?

It’s not just fears of creating a two-tier structure with one seen as inferior to the other but this throws up a range of other issues, too. For instance, how exactly does the vocational element work and how is performance in that stage of it best assessed? How are positions allocated: do a range of firms essentially sign up to offer placements to candidates and they’re taken on a first-come, first-served basis? What if they later withdraw? At what stage in the process is a position on the vocational element of the course allocated?

And this kind of degree is absolutely fine for those who have their career plans mapped out nicely from the start but what about those who think they’ll love the practice of law only to find they wish to pursue academic law? For me, there are question marks over the interchangeability of the constituent elements of the degree – are they subject to the same credit transfer rules, particularly once the student has partially completed the vocational stage?

Also, I’m presuming this is an optional means of qualifying. To allow the legal education system sufficient flexibility and fairness it should only be seen as another way of qualifying – not THE way. One advantage of the current building-block system is that students have a plethora of options available to actively pick and choose and shape their legal education and career as they see fit.

Many students experience a change of heart during their degrees and often wind up doing different things from what they ever imagined.

I’m all for reforming legal education but I’m just not convinced this is the right way to go about it.

Is gaining a legal qualification still worth the cost?

Having stupidly subscribed to the ‘Junior Lawyers’ e-mail list at some point in the distant past, I stumbled across this rather interesting poll earlier today:

 

Wow: 61% voted No.  I knew sentiment was strong out there regarding the exorbitant qualification fees for the legal profession but, I have to admit, I was predicting the ‘Yeses’ to have it – if only by a narrow margin.  To be clear, scanning through the comments on the site, most seem to refer to the LPC rather than ‘academic’ law degrees which has clearly shaped their thinking in the cost versus gain equation.  I’m sure there are many BVC students lurking out there who share similar sentiments regarding the perceived value of their professional qualification. 

For what it’s worth, the comments, such as they are, seem to pretty much stem from mature students with hard-luck stories.  While I guess the nature of their general situation is a little different from that of the masses, there’s no getting away from it: there’s a lot of dissatisfaction out there.

Facebook, Jurors and the 'Virtual Veil'

From Guardian.co.uk: 18.11.08:

A female juror was dismissed from a trial after posting details of the case on Facebook and asking friends whether they thought the defendants were guilty.

The woman went against strict rules forbidding jurors from discussing cases with family and friends by posting details of the sexual assault and child abduction trial on the social networking site.

After her actions were discovered, she was removed from the case at Burnley crown court, in Lancashire, and the trial continued with a jury of 11 people.

A Courts Service spokesman said today: "A juror was dismissed from a case on November 18 for discussing a case outside the court."

It’s been quite a while since I’ve posted a Facebook related entry so this one seemed an obvious choice. For what it’s worth, I’ve largely given up with my Facebook-bashing, as I got sick with it falling so invariably on ‘deaf ears’. I get it: the world loves Facebook and only I don’t. Oh well.

The story does, though, highlight interesting behavioural patterns when people are online, particularly when engaged in social networking activities. I think it shows up a serious divide in many people’s brains over regulating their actions in the real world and the online one. Did the juror really think she’d get away with it? Did she think that her ‘online persona’ is so divorced from reality that any actions carried out online would not be attributed to her real ‘human’ person? It’s almost as though some people view their online conduct as being separated from reality by a ‘virtual veil’, which their real, human person can hide behind without fear of being troubled by disagreeable repercussions that flow from the actions of their ‘online person’. You know, something analogous to the 'corporate veil' which derives from the twin pillar characteristics that a company is blessed with: separate legal personality and limited liability. No?! Anyone?! No, my girlfriend wasn’t interested either.

Sidenote: I’ve become more than a little bored with studying the majestic intricacies surrounding the corporate veil and its lifting, piercing or otherwise penetrating for what seems like an eternity in my Company law module. It still amuses me that on the LPC in Business Law and Practice it was merely mentioned in passing with perhaps two sentences dedicated to the topic. On the LL.M, though, we’ve dissected it to absolute death and then some, more or less from the start of term. God, I love academia.

Everyone's Feeling the Pressure

It's that time of year again. The tension and pressure on us poor law students is so palpable you could almost reach out and grab hold of it. Yes, exams are looming, stretching ahead like a barren wasteland of doom, gloom, hard work, and sleepless night.  And by the time we're into May, sore-finger-itis sets in: our poor hands are left raw and cramping - a symptom of gripping pens too tightly and writing too much in too short a space of time. Revising becomes the number one objective and all of us get more than a little uptight, fraught and tetchy as the days of untold torture unravel. As our tempers get shorter and our patience evaporates, co-habiting with a revising law student can prove a living nightmare.

And let's face it: it's an awful time.  A time when we students can frequently be found in a semi-delirious state, chain smoking with strained, bloodshot eyes and tousled hair, slumped over textbooks and surrounded by reams of paper. And some people reckon that life as a law student is easy?!

So how are some of the ‘regulars’ bearing up?

Legal Lass admits to being 'in the revision zone' something we're all sadly well-accustomed with. At least she’s ‘in the zone’ though – more than some of us, I’m sure. She does, however, relish the opportunity of spending all day in her pyjamas.

Andro is feeling the exam-time squeeze and posted a picture of a bunny being bathed as an indication of her own expression after a gruelling exam. She's also finding the tedium of revising aspects of the Civil Procedure Rules a headache. I'm sure we can all sympathise with that.

ASP is still posting as frequently as ever it seems. He’s pushing out content 2 or 3 times a day on occasions and seems largely unperturbed by the impending exams. The guy’s just relentless in his posting.

Lacklustre Lawyer is not only struggling with an intense workload but seeking a burst of inspiration as to the career path he should choose. And boy, do I know what that’s like!

Susie Law School - (yes, who still doesn't like to Law Actually) second 'nudge nudge' of the year - is documenting the progress of her exams, LPC style. I stopped blogging about my experiences on the LPC long ago. It was bad enough living the experience without raking over the coals on Law Actually.

Law Girl has apparently gone to ground during this 'busy spell' for law students. Pretty sensible, if you ask me.

Minxy's posting frequency has dropped a little of late, a testament, no doubt to her gruelling workload and the pressing time of the year. As ever, though, the number of comments to her posts remains startlingly high!!

As for Law Actually - well, I'm hoping to keep my posting fairly frequent in the coming weeks. I eased off a little last year on both my blogs, although to be fair, Law Actually wasn't properly 'bedded in' at that point. But I abandoned F1 Central for the entire revision period. This year, it seems, I've more or less abandoned it full-stop.