I never understood why the old non university 5 year article route was done away with. It helped a lot of people who couldn't afford university to get on the legal ladder, and some of those people (there are still a few left) are some of the best lawyers I know.Best way to open the law to people from poorer families. Re inventing the wheel methinks.

Having qualified in Australia, where a 4 year law degree is a requirement to be admitted (as in numerous other countries), I am surprised to see how the UK continues to dumb down entry requirements for lawyers.

Firstly, the UK allows individuals to practice having completed a bachelor’s degree in anything (e.g. Ancient History is always good, for museum curators), and then a one year conversion course wherein 4 years of in-depth learning is skimmed through and Bob's your uncle, you’re in!

Now an apprenticeship for lawyers seeks to further erode the quality of practitioners. The Minister who announced this (and the UK Law society which sadly endorses it), said it was aimed at those who are not suited to or do not wish to go to university. Why? Is it because they cannot be bothered putting in the large amounts of study and late nights? Well guess what, that is what lawyers do, day in and day out.

Those who did qualify with a non-law degree will undoubtedly be annoyed by my comments. But the reality is a 4 year law degree does instill upon the individual a deeper and better understanding of the law; it is a non-sense to suggest otherwise.

Now with the apprenticeship scheme, will the UK eventually see Bob the Builder do his time on a construction site, a quick conversion course, and then, it’s Mr. Builder Esq?!?!

Re: Anonymous at 9:13

I heartily agree with the dumbing down of legal qualifications, evidenced mostly in my opinion by the rush of firms a few years ago to sign up Antipodean law graduates to sit the QLTT and three weeks later - presto! They're English solicitors.

I think you need to distinguish between "UK" and England and Scotland - one would hope that you know there is a difference between the two legal systems, though not having qualified here one would question that....Scotland still require, as a standard route, a law degree to be obtained (either first time round or subsequent to another degree) in addition to a postgraduate qualification.

England? Now that's a whole other matter...

This will make little difference to the fact that there will be not enough training contracts for the number of students taking the LPC.

to anonymous at 9.13 - yes, but those Antipodean law graduates also had to have at least some post qualification experience, and had actual real hard-core law degrees, the theory of which IS either English law, or largely based on it.

So suggesting those lawyers are not fit or intellectually able to be English solicitors, or would be any less able than someone with Modren Languages + LPC is laughable.

It is just in discussions and hopefully won't see the light of day. I will be lobbying the SRA to reject this proposal. There is already another route which is ILEX.

There's no real need for law to be a graduate profession and as others have said, solicitors managed perfectly well without degrees for a long time. Someone going through this apprenticeship route is likely to come out at the end of it a very good practitioner. Whereas there are thousands of people currently completing law degrees and the LPC who are by the age of 23 unemployable and filled with a sense of entitlement.

http://botzarelli.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/risky-business-becoming-a-solicitor/

Having trained many lawyers over the years, and seen some fly high and some crash and burn, I am positive that whether they read law or ancient history at university has zero bearing on their quality as lawyers. It's about intellectual ability and intellectual rigour. Some have it, some don't. Reading law at uni is an unreliable predictor.

*CILEX

Solicitors in England need, as a minimum, to have done a three year degree, TWO years at law school (the GDL conversion course, followed by the LPC) and then two years of on the job training, before they qualify. In my experience, that puts them in a better position on qualification than those from other countries that need only have done a four year academic law degree.

Have to agree with the poster at 8.44 - spending 5 years training on the job with occasional stints at law school would give you a significant grounding in the practical application rather than the theory of law - and it's the practical application that counts 90%+ of the time. Intellectual rigor isn't actually of interest to the vast majority of people who are using lawyers!

In addition it does mean that a person can get the qualification without incurring the vast debts that you would incur today.

Finally, the city is not the only place where lawyers work.

Christ almighty! Having spent 5 years sharing building space with Australian law students I can safely assert that they are not the sharpest tools in the shed. Nor are they known for their sense of fun. And if you had to put large amounts of work in, including late nights, to pass a law degree then you may well be one of the students of whom I speak.

On what evidence do you base your opinion that an apprenticeship would "further erode the quality of practitioners"? Just because a person can not afford to spend four years arsing around at university does not mean they are stupid. The smartest bloke I know, far smarter than any lawyer I know, is a plumber. He did an apprenticeship.

By the way, I qualified in the UK with a non-law degree. I did the GDL, having previously qualified as an architect in Australia (5 years at university, 9-5 every day, 5 days a week and, yes, late nights (though they were generally spent in the pub)). I am not in the slightest bit annoyed by your comments. Why would I be? That would be like getting annoyed at a turd for stinking.

I am, however, mildly miffed that you are giving us antipodeans a bad name. Stop taking yourself so seriously son, it's embarrassing.

I did a law degree but it was a joint degree with German so was basically equivalent to doing a German degree with the CPE/GDL. I don't think I am a worse lawyer for not doing three years of law. I don't use the stuff I learnt at uni at work. I use the stuff I learnt at work at work.

I hope I will live long enough to see one day that doctors will not need their medical degrees to practice - surely they all can learn at work through apprenticeship?