1 The third of the recommendations in that report.

Transcription

1 1 No. We are concerned that the proposals lack rigour and will not result in sufficiently high standards in those qualifying as solicitors. We accept that there may be a place for centrally set assessments, but we do not support the model proposed in the consultation paper. The proposals will not encourage new and diverse pathways. The current pathways are: 1. QLD/GDL then LPC and training contract. 2. CILEX and LPC 3. Apprenticeships 4. QLTS 5. Equivalence Under the SRA s proposals, all of those pathways will remain, but they will be altered to insert the SQE. The proposals won t obviously result in new routes. In fact, in the most extreme version of the SRA s proposals (no need for any qualifications at all other than passing the SQE and no period of workplace experience) there will actually only be one route to qualifying; passing the SQE. We are also concerned that the proposals will (despite the best intentions of the SRA), for most people, increase the costs involved in qualifying, thus reducing, rather than widening, access to the profession. It seems likely that, irrespective of the regime that is eventually implemented, firms will still require most of their lawyers to be graduates, and it is likely that candidates will need to have some form of preparation for all aspects of the centrally set assessments. This would mean that most people would remain subject to the financial burden that the current regime brings, but would also have to pay for the cost of the assessments themselves. There is also a risk of the SRA and the Bar Standards Board going in different directions. This could result in people having to make career choices much earlier than is currently the case. It might also mean that it will be harder in the future to switch from being a solicitor to becoming a barrister. We would urge the SRA to take note of what is said in the report they commissioned from Kyla Malcolm; work with the BSB to ensure that similarities between regimes are identified such that, as far as possible, law degrees can meet the needs of both professions 1 We accept that a 2:1 degree from University A may not be worth the same as one from University B, but the cherrypicking of parts of the 2015 HEFCE consultation gives a misleading impression. Furthermore students and employers have a good understanding of how they would rank different universities (and those rankings are different for different disciplines). Crucially, the SRA s proposals involve being satisfied that all those entering the profession have reached the required standard. Provided that the answer to that question is yes, it does not matter whether a particular individual has done so by a narrow margin or a large margin. So, provided that it is clear that passing a particular degree takes one over the threshold, then that should be sufficient. It is only very recently that the JASB, the body created to 1 The third of the recommendations in that report.

2 oversee standards of Qualifying Law Degrees and GDLs, was dissolved on the basis that the combination of universities self-certifying and meeting the requirements of the QAA, rendered the JASB unnecessary. It would be surprising if the SRA is now suggesting that those arrangements are not appropriate. We accept the criticism about disparities between LPCs. Of course the vocational stage of qualification used to have centrally set assessments, but it was the regulator that changed that, not the providers. Having said that, the threshold point that we make in relation to the QLD/GDL also applies to LPCs. 2 No. We are strongly opposed to the proposed model. It will not be an effective test of the competences needed to be a solicitor. It is not sufficiently rigorous, and will result in a lowering of standards. The SRA s Statement of Legal Knowledge should be revised. At the risk of oversimplifying, it is made up of the essential elements of a current Qualifying Law Degree and most of Stage 1 of the LPC (with the exception of the skills elements). The Statement of Legal Knowledge should be divided into two parts; academic and vocational. We accept that the academic elements of the Statement of Legal Knowledge can be centrally assessed (as SQE 1), but only on the basis that: 1. The current QLD and GDL remain, and give exemptions to SQE SQE 1 is much more rigorous than is currently proposed. It should be assessed to the equivalent of degree standard 2. We acknowledge that it can be partially assessed through MCQs, but only up to a maximum of 30% 3. Candidates need to be able to demonstrate that they can construct and develop a legal argument for example through the use of essay and problem based questions. We accept that the vocational elements of the Statement of Legal Knowledge can be centrally assessed (as SQE 2), but not solely through MCQs. MCQs can form an important part of those assessments, but candidates need to face assessments in which they have to explain the litigation process, advise on wills, draft a contract, or set out the advice they would give when advising on choice of business medium 4. Our suggestion would be that SQE 2 be fairly similar to the current Stage 1 of the LPC (omitting skills, and with an accounts assessment which is more about understanding accounts and the SRA Accounts Rules, rather than bookkeeping). Those assessments should, as now, include hidden professional conduct 2 If the SRA is not prepared to go this far then the requirement to have a degree should be retained, but the SQE would, in any event, need to be much more rigorous than the current SRA proposal. 3 We agree that assessing by MCQs can be more sophisticated than some would realise, and that they can test more than mere knowledge, but they cannot test everything that, for example, can be assessed by means of an essay. 4 Of course they might face these tasks in the later skills tests, but (because of the degree of choice given to them at that stage) they could also avoid those tasks.

3 questions 5. Additionally we would suggest that the SRA consider the retention of a course similar to Stage 1 of the LPC that would give exemption from what we have labelled SQE 2. We agree with the proposals set out in relation to Practical Legal Skills Assessments (we would call it SQE 3), but we think the SRA need to be clearer as to the standard set. There is nothing on the face of the consultation document that suggests that the intended standard is anything other than that currently required for skills on the Legal Practice Course, but we have twice 6 heard the SRA say that the standard being considered is LPC plus two years. We agree that this higher standard is appropriate (we are not quite sure about the best definition of it, but it is about the standard required at the point of qualification). We are aware that the SRA s proposed model for the SQE is heavily influenced by what is seen as the success of the QLTS. But it simply doesn t follow that tests that work reasonably well for a group of people who have qualified (and often have degrees and will have been in practice) in other jurisdictions will work equally well for those who do not have the same background. We realise that it might be suggested that our proposed SQE 1 is not appropriate for those coming through from CILEx, apprenticeships or the QLTS 7, but that cannot be a reason for setting a lower standard for the majority who do not come through those routes. It might be appropriate to set an easier version of SQE 1 for those coming from such backgrounds but the SRA must first satisfy itself that there would be true equivalence between each route 8. There needs to be an acceptance of the fact that one size simply does not fit all. We fully appreciate that it is convenient to set the same assessments for every entrant to the profession. But the priority should be the maintenance of standards, not administrative convenience. 3 Yes but on the basis that we propose in our answer to question 2. 4 a) Yes. We accept the rationale set out in the consultation document. b) No. For the reasons set out in paragraph 50 of the consultation document. c) No. It takes specialisation at the point of qualification too far. Whilst we would not argue strongly against this proposal, we think a) is better. 5 Under the current regime there is a discrete Professional Conduct exam (which includes financial services) and a requirement that 5% of the marks in each of Business, Property and Litigation be for professional conduct questions. We consider that all professional conduct questions should be hidden ; the key step in dealing with these types of issues is actually recognising that there is a potential problem something that is clearly not tested in a discrete exam. 6 When Julie Brannan came to the University of Sheffield to talk to the local profession and universities, and at a meeting between the Qualification Working Group and the SRA on 21 January We can understand that people coming through those routes at present will often make excellent solicitors but might struggle with a traditional academic exam. 8 This ought not to be a difficult exercise as presumably the SRA is currently satisfied that there is equivalence.

4 5 It should be set at higher than graduate level or equivalent. The qualification is currently assessed to higher than graduate level. The Legal Practice Course is a postgraduate course, and the training contract definitely adds something to that (even though it does not obviously align to an FHEQ level). The current standard can be described as postgraduate plus. We would certainly be opposed to an overall lowering of the standard. 6 Yes. We regard this as being essential, despite the concerns about variation between the standards of the current training contract providers. 7 Yes. Candidates mature and develop considerably during the current training contract. The differences between a Day 1 trainee and a Day 1 solicitor are considerable, and those differences illustrate the value and importance of the training contract. The period of time of pre-qualification workplace experience should be fixed, and we suggest that it should remain unchanged (subject to existing possibility of a six month reduction). If a purely outcomes-based approach is taken there is a real risk of a rush to the bottom. 8 We don t think that it is a case of one or the other. We consider that there should be a period of workplace experience (see our answers to questions 6 and 7). So the real question is whether, additionally, the SRA should specify competencies that are to be required to be met during pre-qualification workplace experience. If the SRA is to specify competencies that are to be required to be met during prequalification workplace experience, then there has to be some device for assessing them. We note that there are currently no proposals for assessing a number of the competencies set out in the Statement of Solicitor Competence (A2, A3, D1, D2 and D3). We agree with AlphaPlus that if these competencies are not to be assessed then there is no point in including them in the Statement of Solicitor Competence (at least in relation to requirements as at the date of qualification). In any event, we suggest that, because of the very nature of these competencies, the only point at which they can be assessed is during (or at the end of) a period of workplace experience. The most commonly suggested method of assessment is through a portfolio, but there are significant issues with such an assessment. One (though it can be guarded against by redactions etc) is the risk of the breach of client confidentiality. Another is that firms (or groups of firms) will develop a standard portfolio into which one simply slots a few specific examples. If (as will generally be the case) firms feel that their trainees are ready to qualify, then a portfolio will largely be the work of the firm, and not the work of the individual. Unless candidates are to be required to attend to be

5 questioned on the portfolio (which, we acknowledge, is a possibility albeit one that carries an expense), then the portfolios themselves will actually be of little value. We do think that it is worth pointing out that there is a sense in which the current training contract does assess competencies. The training principal has to certify that an individual has completed the period of recognised training, and regulation 12 of the Training Regulations 2014 sets out what that involves. It includes satisfying competencies (although it is not quite expressed in that way) see the references in regulation 12 to the Principles and the Practice Skills Standards. The signing off of a trainee is a form of soft assessment. The Training Regulations are not terribly specific in relation to what is required of a training contract (or as to standards) and one possibility is to consider incorporating elements of the Statement of Solicitor Competence (perhaps parts of A2, A3, D1, D2 and D3) into regulation We think that there is a danger of this being unworkable if it goes beyond what is currently permitted under regulation 12.3 of the Training Regulations Many degree programmes do include the opportunity for some workplace experience, but we would not suggest that this should normally be recognised as it usually takes place alongside other studies. It would normally be equivalent to only a very few weeks of full time work. 10 Please see our answer to question We are not an employer, but we would nevertheless like to comment. As we say in answer to question 8, this already happens (although perhaps not quite in the way that the consultation now envisages). Beyond that, we think it is difficult for firms to answer this without more detail of what it is that you might be asking them to do. 12 It is impossible to answer this question unless you provide more detail of what it is that you are proposing. 13 Yes, prescription and regulation are necessary. We would urge the SRA to consider seriously the proposal that we put in answer to question 2. But if that proposal is not accepted, then: As to entry requirements for the SQE, if the SQE is sufficiently rigorous, then we do not consider that entry requirements are necessary. But, we are firmly of the view that the current proposals for the SQE are a long way from being sufficiently rigorous. Assessments must be credible. The proposals for the SQE are not.

6 We find the suggestion that consumers of legal services and students need protecting only for a limited period a little odd. Either they need protecting, or they don t. 14 Yes. But that is the current position anyway. Non-degree routes (apprenticeships/ CILEx/QLTS) are reasonably treated as having equivalence. 15 We don t have a strong view. Having said that, the thrust of the consultation is about judging competence ie is an individual competent or not? That approach is more consistent with not giving information about comparative performance. 16 a) It depends upon what you do in relation to question 15. If you don t publish information about individuals then information about overall candidate performance may be of limited value. One might think that, if the information is easily available, there may be little reason not to publish it, but we do share the reservations set out in the second part of paragraph 85 of the consultation document. b) i) If, by training provider you mean an institution that prepares candidates for the SQE, then if the SRA s proposals were adopted we would be opposed to publishing any such information, because it could adversely impact upon the widening participation policies of some institutions. ii) If, by training provider you mean a firm (or other body) that is providing workplace experience that is to be assessed, then we would be opposed to publishing any such information unless you are proposing some form of assessment of the workplace experience which involves the training provider taking no part in the assessment itself. 17 We are of the view that the proposals, as currently framed, will increase the costs of qualifying (see our answer to question 1), which will disadvantage some. 18 We don t feel that the transitional arrangements are fully formed. Indeed they cannot be fully formed until one knows exactly what any new regime is going to look like (ie until one knows what we are transitioning into). They seem to be broadly sensible, but we would not wish to comment beyond that. If the proposals that we outline in answer to question 2 are accepted then certain aspects of transition become more straightforward a QLD/GDL (whenever obtained) would give an exemption from what we label SQE 1, and an LPC (whenever obtained) could give an exemption from what we label SQE 2 (but not from SQE 3). 19 It is always possible to imagine a one-off case of a single individual who would seem harshly treated by the operation of a cut-off date, but we accept that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

7 We would, however, take you back to the second paragraph of our answer to question 18 under our suggestion, you would not need a cut-off date for old QLDs/GDLs in relation to what we label SQE 1 or old LPCs in relation to what we label SQE It does seem ambitious. For example the production of the draft Assessment Framework document is a substantial undertaking; it should include detailed syllabuses and sample assessments - that is likely to take some considerable time. It should also be the subject of consultation (the programme of work makes no reference to such a consultation). But the question ought not just to be about the feasibility of the timetable; it should also be about its appropriateness. For example, our view is that the draft Assessment Framework document ought to have been produced as part of the current consultation.