Summary of Report of the Chair of the Regulatory Affairs Board - December 2009

The Board had responded to a number of SRA consultations and had received a full report from the Education and Training Committee.

The Education and Training Committee had prepared proposals about entry to the profession. Option discussed included:

• The introduction of an aptitude test would be one way to reduce numbers entering onto the LPC. The Board generally supported this.

• Expansion of the Society’s existing information campaign. The Board strongly supported this.

• No entry to LPC without a training contract. The Board did not support this option.

• Point of qualification prior to an extended period of practical experience. The Board did not support this option;

• Support for alternative routes to qualification – in some circumstances those who wished to qualify as a solicitor used the ILEX route and avoided the need to undertake a formal training contract.

• Incentives or support for firms offering training contracts – the Education and Training Committee had agreed to conduct further research into cost-effective ways in which TLS or the SRA could make offering training contracts more attractive for firms or other organisations.

• Modular training, under which trainees could move between firms/in-house legal departments to get a good spread of experience, could be developed.

• Entry requirements to the LPC based on academic result, i.e. all those seeking admission to the LPC must have a First or a 2:1 Class Honours Degree. This approach was discounted because it was deemed to be both discriminatory and difficult from a regulatory perspective. The Board agreed that this proposal should not be pursued.

• Limiting LPC numbers - limiting the number of places on LPCs would close the gap between the number of LPC graduates and the number of available training contracts. This would be a long-term option, as many LPC providers had had their numbers validated for the next five years. Any attempt to limit numbers for the remaining providers would be inequitable. The SRA had made it clear that it did not wish to control the market and TLS had publicly supported this stance. There might also be competition difficulties in introducing controls based on any criteria other than standards. The Education and Training Committee had agreed with this approach.

A Council member asked that in the light of the Legal Services Board call to evidence regarding referral fees, what was RAB planning to do in response? The Chair responded that there would be a paper for the January meeting. A Council member asked how seriously RAB was taking the introduction of ABSs. A key point was the lack of action on ABSs and this Council member had previously voiced concerns that he did not think plans will be made to develop ABSs speedily enough. The Chair responded that work was currently being done by the Rules and Ethics Committee on this.