Present:
Lord Justice Potter Chairman
| Mr John Hodgson ALT | Mr Dave Shaw NACAB |
| Ms Alison Bone ALT | Ms Anne Wong ITMA |
| Mr Nigel A Bastin Bar Council | Ms Melissa Hardee LETG |
| Ms Julie Swan Law Society | Ms Helen Carr University of North London |
| Philip Plowden Law Society | Ms Caroline Maughan University of West of England |
| Professor Robert Lee BVC | |
| Professor Gwyneth Pitt CHULS | Professor Hugh Brayne LSCP |
| Dr Peter Wright QAA | Ms Karen Mackay LSCP |
| Professor Adrian Keane ICSL | Professor John Bell LSCP |
| Nicholas Pope CIPA | Ms Peta Sweet LSCP |
| Professor Richard Card SoLS | Ms Angela Devereux Cardiff University |
| Professor Nick Wikeley SoLS | Professor Andy Boon Westminster University |
| Ms Tracey Varnava UKCLE | Professor Grimes University of Newcastle |
| Mr Peter Watson LSC | Mr Nigel Reeder LCD |
| Professor Peter Birks SoLS | Mr Patrick Bourke LCD |
| Ms Jo Larbie LSTC | Mr David McIntosh LCD |
| Ms Julie Herzog LSC | Mrs Meg Oghoetuoma LCD |
The Chairman welcomed members to the Conference and said that there are 18 apologies.
The Chairman briefly explained that the Conference will now last for a full day and that there will be presentations in the morning on two key themes, which are the Widening Access to Legal Education and the National Occupational Standards for the legal advice sector. He said that this would be followed by an opportunity to discuss the issues arising from the presentations in the workshops. The Chairman mentioned the domestic and security arrangements.
Item 1 - Minutes of the last meeting
On Research, the Chairman said that the Legal Services Consultative Panel (LSCP) had put forward to LCD research proposals on the education and training of people in the lay advice sector. This had been included in the UK Research Priority Document for 2002. However, after consideration, it had been decided not to proceed with that research at the present time. This appeared to be largely due to the fact that the Legal Services Commission is covering much the same ground in its National Occupational Standards project.
The Chairman also mentioned a scoping study, which had been prepared by Professor Avrom Sherr of the Institute for Advanced Legal Studies and said that given the number of initiatives coming forward at present the LSCP was considering putting forward revised proposals based on Professor Sherr's initial work. Hopefully these ideas might be included in next year's Research Priority Document.
The Chairman then said that it was unfortunate that Professor Alan Paterson could not be present to update the conference on the proposal to put together a paper for The Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE). He said that although this had not been specifically shown as an action point for Professor Paterson in the minutes of the last meeting, he nevertheless hoped that Professor Paterson would be prepared to take this forward [Action - Secretariat to confirm this with Professor Paterson].
The Chairman asked whether anyone had any points to raise about the accuracy of the minutes. Professor Wikeley referred to Professor Paterson's intervention on Page 4 of the minutes. He said that he was concerned about the accuracy of the second sentence ('although he understood that The Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE) had 10 different disciplines to fund, legal education relied heavily on new library and IT resources'). Profess Wikeley said that he is sure that Professor Paterson's position was that Law is in the lowest funding band. The Chairman said that the minutes should be amended and that the second sentence should read "He said that although he understood that law was in the lowest funding band, legal education relied heavily and increasingly on new library and IT resources". (ACTION POINT).
Professor Pitt said that the comments attributed to her in paragraph 3 of page 4 under funding were inaccurate. The comment should say that "Law Schools commonly make large contributions to funding law libraries, but that these contributions did not always show up in Government data on expenditure". (ACTION POINT - Secretariat to amend minutes).
Mr Plowden said that he was referred to as being present at the last meeting when in fact he was not. There were no further comments relating to the minutes of the last meeting.
Item 2 - Terms of Reference and membership of Standing Conference
The Chairman said that in response to the concerns expressed at the last meeting, Professor Card was asked to form a Working Group (the Group), to consider presenting proposals on the format of future meetings. Terms of Reference of the Conference, and its Membership. The Chairman reminded members that a copy of the Report was sent to them with their meeting pack. He then invited Professor Card to make a short presentation.
Presentation by Professor Card on the Report of the Working Group on Terms of Reference and Membership of the Standing Conference on Legal Education
Professor Card said that his working group had comprised of Ms Julie Swan of the Law Society, Mr Nigel Bastin of the Bar Council, Professor Hugh Brayne - member of the Legal Services Consultative Panel, Mr Peter Watson of the Legal Services Commission, Mr David Shaw of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureau and Mr Nigel Reeder, Secretary to the Conference. He said that the Group met twice and also conducted its deliberations by e-mail. The Group also met the Panel on one occasion and presented the draft Report to members of the Panel who supported the contents of the Report.
Professor Card explained that at the outset his Group recognised the Conference was the only umbrella organisation in the field of legal education and training which provided a good forum for discussion of important issues by the key stakeholders. Professor Card said there was a view at the last meeting that the Standing Conference was not being used to its full potential. At half a day only, there was not enough time for proper discussions and the Conference had become something of a talking shop with little follow up.
As a result, Professor Card said that his Group felt that rather than trying to hold more meetings it would be preferable to retain two meetings a year, but for these to be full day Conferences. The Group also felt the Conference should have clearly articulated Terms of Reference, that meetings should focus on small number of key issues rather than on a lengthy agenda of presentations, and that issues of legal education and training should be tied into the work of the LSCP. On membership of the Conference, Professor Card said his Group recommended there should be a small core of major stakeholders who would have one representative, as of right serving for a minimum of two years. This core membership should bring stability and continuity to the conference. The remainder of the membership would be invited on an ad hoc basis depending on the agenda of meetings.
The Group felt that 40 was the maximum number of people that could be accommodated in the existing Conference style format. There is also the danger of having too many members as of right as this could mean that some members without a particular interest or expertise in a particular subject would attend meetings, whilst those who may have a real contribution to make may have to be excluded. Professor Card said the Group proposed there should therefore be ten representatives who will have members as of right. With an average of four to six panel members attending there would then be about 25 spaces left for the invitees. The list of bodies regarded as major stakeholders was:
The Bar Council, the Law Society, the Institute of Legal Executives = 3 representatives as of right;
Groups representing law schools (ie SLS, CHULS, ALT, BVC providers group and LPC providers group) = 5 representatives as of right;
Legal Services Commission = 1 representative as of right; and
Advice Services Alliance = 1 representative as of right
He said that it was difficult to draw the line but that bodies such as the legal education and training group, the young solicitor's group, and the young barristers group would almost certainly be invitees for the vast majority of the conference sessions.
The Chairman said that any member who felt he had an interest in a particular subject and would like to attend the meetings would not be excluded. He said that Mr Reeder would compile a comprehensive list of all those who wish to be informed of the items on the agenda. He said that the agenda would then be circulated so that anyone who felt they have a contribution to make could write to Nigel Reeder at LCD.
Alison Bone of the Association of Law Teachers (ALT) said she was pleased with the proposals given that the ALT would be entitled to send one representative. However, she noted paragraph 10 of the Group's proposals makes two separate points. It stated that it is difficult for everyone who wishes to contribute to do so, links this point to the number of those attending, and goes on to say that nothing appears to have resulted from any discussion at the Conference. She said that the second point, which is the most fundamental, is well addressed by the changes to the Terms of Reference. In particular she referred to Roman numeral (v) and (vi) on the last page of the Report. She was of the view that the problem of sending out invitations to a specific number of people would be that it is difficult to know who will attend. Rather than change the make up of the conference, she suggested that the new format of the whole day meeting be given a chance to operate before changing membership. The Chairman asked whether a representative from the ALT would be nominated as a contact point for the LCD to send the agendas to. Alison Bone replied that she is the Secretary to the ALT but that the issue of nominating a representative would be a matter for the ALT as a body.
Professor Pitt supported the idea of reducing the core membership of the conference to a manageable size. However, she questioned the overall size of forty as being the optimum and that the idea of a full day meeting could result in a low turn out. She suggested an optimum number of thirty at a round table meeting would be more appropriate. She also felt the idea of having only one representative from a body could be counter productive particularly given there would be two workshops. The Chairman said he agreed with Professor Card that if there were thirty people attending a half day meeting the time constraints could lead to only a very superficial consideration of a wide range of issues. However, he felt it was important to take these points into account before finalising anything on the Report. And he felt that members should consider these issues and be ready to discuss them and finalise arrangements at the next meeting. (ACTION POINT).
Professor John Bell said that the most important point in the Group's proposals is that the core institutions will have a commitment of individuals for over a year, which will encourage continuity.
Ms Mackay said that on membership, she would like to know the reason for the inclusion of the LSC as a representative as of right. She also said that with regard to the Terms of Reference and under (vi) which states that: 'through its secretariat, to convey to the Legal Services Consultative Panel its views about matters which should be included in the Panel's programme of work;' she would like to suggest that given the conference's very limited resource, the statement should be amended slightly to read '……. could be included in the Panel's programme of work'; (ACTION POINT). Richard Card agreed that the amendments could be made. However, he said that with reference to the LSC's inclusion as a representative as of right, the rationale behind the decision was the need for the conference to move away from the idea of the conference being a meeting of professional bodies and law teachers and to serve as a recognition of the fact that the meetings are not simply discussions about the traditional types of delivery of certain types of legal services. He said that the LSC is a major player in terms of developing new ways of delivering legal services and as such they should be entitled to be involved. The Chairman added that the LSC also had an important role in the setting of standards.
Professor Wikeley was concerned that some nominated members may be unable to attend meetings. Long distances for some to travel exacerbated this. He also felt that HEFCE should be given the permanent membership given that funding issues could arise at meetings. Professor Card said this highlighted again the difficult questions of membership and where to draw the line. If HEFCE is included as of right, then because the conference is also concerned with the training of paralegals, the Learning and Skills Council should also be given the same status because they fund all training below HE level. Mr Bastin said that he and Julie Swan supported the proposals but felt they should be reviewed in two years time.
Professor Brayne felt the LSC represented a very significant aspect of public interest which was in a sense, similar to that of the professional bodies not least because of their role in setting standards. He also felt the proceedings of the conference should be published on LCD's website (ACTION POINT).
Professor Lee said that education and training should include continuing professional development and that the Legal Education and Training Group (LETG) would have particular interest in this. He went on to say that LETG should be given a place on the conference as of right because it could provide the conference with a consumer view. He also felt the Social Legal Studies Association (SLSA) should be included because it had a large and active membership.
Ms Hardee questioned whether the LETG should be a member as of right. She said she had attended the conference on behalf of LETC for 3 years and that while she had found the proceedings informative she would understand if others felt LETG's presence would not be vital at some meetings. She also said she felt the permanent members could benefit from having a consumer input. She supported the new proposals but said that the only point that she took issue with was that she felt there should be more than two meetings a year. This would provide for more extensive discussions. In her opinion, there should be more than two and perhaps four meetings a year and they should not be held for a full day. In response to a question from the Chairman, Ms Hardee explained that LETG's membership comprises firms (including City firms) throughout the UK who lobby the Law Society on matters of legal education and training.
Ms Sweet said that she agreed with the point made by Professor Brayne. The issue of membership arose in the first place in order to try to create a more effective link between the conference and the work of the Panel. She said the main point is to agree on the objectives of the conference and to be flexible in achieving those objectives within any particular format. She said that there is a need to start disseminating clearly to all stakeholders and there is also the need to consider the fact that consumers of legal education are not represented at the meetings. It is therefore important to profile the work of the conference very carefully so that any stakeholder who is interested can make an input.
Professor Keane agreed that core membership needed to be limited, but he was concerned that all interests should be represented. In relation to those doing training contracts, he felt membership of LETG may help, but was concerned that apart from those working simultaneously as practitioners and teachers, or sitting in a judicial capacity, there has never been any practitioner as such at the conference meetings.
The Chairman said that as far as the Bar is concerned, while representatives happen to come along as permanent officials there has always been the opportunity for them to invite somebody who is a practitioner and this is also the position with the Law Society. However he agreed with Professor Keane that it would be desirable to have a representative from the practitioners and an interested voice in the core membership of the conference.
Professor Boon thought that the list of core members appeared fairly conservative and that it might be useful to invite some more radical voices on an ad hoc basis. Perhaps practitioners or members of SLSA might be more challenging of the conventional view. For example, it could be useful to discuss the abolition of training contracts, the vocational stage of training, the abolition of the award of degrees as a means of qualifying. These are all ideas which have been floated at various stages. The Trainee Solicitors Group or the Young Bar might, potentially, be useful to invite.
The Chairman said that he has encouraged members that if they know of anyone who has got a particular line or something to contribute or who is able and happy to espouse their line of thinking to the conference, then that person should be encouraged to do so and will be invited to the conference on an ad hoc basis.
Professor Boon thought this was helpful but added that it would be quite difficult to attend a meeting with a well-established membership where the core of its membership consists of very senior members of the profession and then to advocate something quite radical. He said that for this to be possible, the radical group needs to be a member as part of an on-going process making those views heard. There would be a need for that group to also have supporters otherwise there might be a situation whereby the group may put forward new ideas, which may not be approved because they have no supporters and are in the minority. Ms Sweet made the point that it would be very useful for certain organisations (eg DTI, DWP, HEFCE) to be at some meetings.
Ms Mackay said that the members could be radical but must be realistic. She said it may be better to establish the principle behind the membership of the core group and to require there to be at least one group or organisation that represents the views of the clients or consumers of legal services (eg the Legal Services Ombudsman or the National Consumer Council or another organisation like the TUC). She said that the most important point however, is that it will be useful to establish a principle that there should be a range of organisations from the providers, through to the regulators and to the consumers and perhaps the funders whether of higher education or legal services through the LSC, and that if the members can agree on this then it could go back to the group for them to prepare a final list.
Professor Card said the Group had considered this and had been unable to identify a single group to represent all consumer interests. Professor Brayne said it was not possible to make general decisions at the meeting and suggested the proceedings of the meetings including papers presented at the conference should be put on the LCD website so that others could contribute to discussions on issues considered by the Conference. Ms Sweet said that it is not only the minutes that should go on the web but also a statement of the objectives of the conference should also go on the web, just so that people are clear on what the conference is about. The Chairman asked whether everyone was content with a statement on the objective going on the web. Ms Mackay said that a summary of the minutes rather than the minutes of the meeting should go on the web as people who are not privy to the dynamics of what the meeting is about may not understand the minutes. The Chairman said that the minutes are always first produced in the form of a draft. Professor Pitt said that the minutes is the better option for the web as it is the official record of the meeting and that a summary will only amount to a duplication of efforts. The Chairman said that so far as the proceedings of the conference are concerned, the minutes, which emerge from the meetings, should be put on the web. (ACTION POINT).
In concluding this item, The Chairman said his perception was that members appeared to be content with the proposed terms of reference, but that issues remained to be resolved over membership. He asked Professor Card to reconsider this with his Group in the hope that the issues could be resolved at the next meeting of the Conference. (ACTION POINT).
Presentation on widening Access to Legal Education - Nigel Bastin (Bar Council) and Julie Swan (Law Society)
Mr Bastin said that given that as a decision has been reached that the minutes of the conference meeting should be published, he would like to make it clear that the views he is about to express are solely his views and as such should not be construed as being the policy of the Bar Council. He went on to say that he prepared and circulated a paper for the last standing conference, which has also been seen by Julie Swan of the Law Society who has not taken any exceptions to it. He then proceeded to update the conference on the Bar Council's position on the funding of the vocational stage of training for students. He said in summary, the paper indicates there has been a considerable increase in opportunities for people to train for the legal profession and that law degrees are available throughout the country both full time, part time and by distance learning. He said however there do appear to be two problems. The first is the concern that changes to funding arrangements may be deterring and may continue to deter students from coming into the legal profession. The second point is that there is evidence from research, which has been undertaken by the Law Society, which indicates that students from certain backgrounds do not stand a good chance of getting training contracts or pupillage in the best firms or chambers. The question is why?
Mr Bastin said that the Bar Council and the Law Society are committed to ensuring that access to the profession is open to all on the basis of merit and that a situation in which people are unable to enter the profession on the basis of their financial needs should not be acceptable. He said that this principle was affirmed by the Bar Council and that the Chairman, Chairman elect and Vice Chairman of the Bar are all fully committed to this principle. He said that the problem of funding of higher education has been the subject of debate and that the key to this problem is the comment made by Margaret Hodge when she asked 'should the dustman help to fund the doctor?' He said this is the exact same question being asked about those training to join the legal profession. He went on to examine the question of funding of those people entering the vocational stage of training and said the changes in funding meant that students who complete the undergraduate stage of training enter into the vocational stage of training with ever increasing amount of debt and that the Bar is conscious of the fact that the vocational stage of training is a very expensive product. Mr Bastin said that as a result of this concern, the present Chairman of the Bar had asked Sir Robin Mountfield with a number of practising barristers, to develop solutions to this particular problem. The proposals put forward by sir Robin Mountfield's group envisaged a funding of 400 students selected on the grounds of merit whose BVC fees would be funded from a levy on those members of the Bar earning in excess of £100k pa. The proposal was put forward to the Bar for consultation. However, it met with considerable opposition from many sections of the practising Bar particularly those based in London. He said that it has however proved to be an interesting debate because of the key issues raised by the respondents to the Mountfield Report, for example, what role should a professional regulatory body like the Bar Council have in respect of the funding of new entrants? He said there is a genuine debate as to the role of the professional body and he drew an interesting parallel by asking - if professional bodies are asked to fund new entrants, then should professors be invited to contribute some of their salaries to young researchers? The other question that was raised, he said, was the extent to which successful sections of the Bar should be used to support the less profitable sections of the Bar.
Mr Bastin said that another point that was raised was the question of means testing. He said that the Mountfield Committee was opposed to any form of means testing. The Report indicated that students were to be selected on merit using an aptitude test. This raises questions of when does one's obligation as a parent end? The position at present is that parental income is taken into account by the government in determining what level of funding an undergraduate student should have. At the moment unless the student gets married or has attained the age of 25, that obligation remains. The question here is that is it right that parents should have an obligation to support their children through vocational training if they are under 25? Where do we draw the line? When do we stop taking into account parental income. The competition lawyers also had raised issues on the competition implications of proposed funding arrangements. There was also the question of why should self-employed barristers fund someone who, when qualified, would, effectively, be competing against them. He said that the Mountfield proposals were not put before the Bar Council at its July meeting. Instead the matter is being kept open and the Bar Council will look at the question of recruitment to the profession and whether more chambers should be encouraged to recruit prospective students before they start on the BVC. This has equal opportunity implications but it is nevertheless something that should be considered. He said that the Bar will look at the questions on the selection of the BVC, the cost and context of the BVC because many of the respondents said that the BVC was far too expensive and that similar comments have been made about the LPC.
Mr Bastin said some radical ideas had been expressed such as that the BVC should be abolished and replaced with a summer school at the end of which students would go straight to pupillage where they would complete all their advocacy training etc. He said that by the early part of next year the Bar expected to receive another of Joanna Shaplland's research projects into the work of the young Bar. That should help to inform the Bar's discussions on the BVC. He said that the Bar would also be looking at the extent to which chambers should be encouraged to fund students through the BVC. Many chambers already fund students especially those in competition with the City firms.The Bar wants to encourage more chambers to do this. The Bar will also be considering how they will be able to fund the less well off by looking at and, to increase the amount available for scholarships and also to see if more can be done to ensure that these are awarded on the basis of means. Funding new entrants posed a major challenge for a professional body. Another important dimension concerns ethnicity as far as entry to the profession is concerned. However, the Bar is attempting to move away from just looking at ethnicity in isolation in relation to entry into the profession and looking at issues more in terms of social groupings - it is important to consider the problems which face all students. Additionally when talking about entry to the profession, there is the tendency to make assumptions about the penetration into the profession of students from elite universities. However, many top universities are putting considerable efforts into trying to broaden the entry into their courses. He also raised the question of "Top-up" fees as another potentially difficult issue to feed into the equation.
Before addressing the Conference, Ms Swan also stated that any views she expressed were solely her own and should not be construed as being the policy of the Law Society. She said there had been three pieces of research which the Law Society have published within the last 12 months and that she would like to extract a couple of the key findings from that research and raise some questions arising from it. She said the first piece of research is the annual statistical report produced by the Law Society. Some of the key findings in the 2001 Report have potential relevance to today's discussions in that they illustrate the continuing popularity of undergraduate studies in law degree. The Report also indicates the very healthy mix (particularly in terms of ethnic origin of students) of students who are opting to study law as their first choice. In fact in the Year 2000, some 21.2% of students who enrolled for law degree programmes were from ethnic minority groups. She said that other interesting findings are that just over 30% all trainees or trainee solicitors working in private practice were in firms of 81 or more partners.
Ms Swan said that the next piece of research is a piece of qualitative research, which is the social class and entry into the solicitor's profession. She said a key finding was the effect of multiple disadvantage. This was a combination of social background, school type and school background performance, examination results and the influence all of these factors can have on university types and in turn the potential to secure a training contract.
Ms Swan said that another issue which compounds the effect of multiple disadvantage is the way in which those students who lack the finance to be able to support themselves are the very students who are less likely to achieve sponsorship from the firms. She said that another piece of research which has only just been published, highlights the considerable time and efforts that firms put into making sound decisions when they are deciding on how to recruit trainee solicitors and the efforts they go through in trying to secure the best candidate. The research highlights that firms tend to establish good relationships with universities to ensure that they do not "scramble" for the best trainees and it highlights that some firms particularly target Oxbridge and some traditional universities in pursuit of their recruitment of trainees. Ms Swan said that there is a belief that many partners and those involved in recruitment firmly hold the view that the universities that require the highest entry requirements at A-level grades have the most demanding degree and therefore produce the best candidates. Ms Swan said that the research also highlights the importance of vocational placements to students who were seeking to secure a training contract and the way in which vocational placement opportunities can enhance a student's chances of securing a training contract. The advantage of this for students is that it will assist them in paying off their debts rather than undertaking some unpaid vocational placements or taking work unrelated to their study course.
Ms Swan also raised a series of questions, which she said would be discussed later in the afternoon during the open forum. Her first question was on the issue of financial factors which she said Mr Bastin had already mentioned. But in addition to what he had said, she asked why is it that the majority of students on vocational courses tend to study full time rather than part time? She said that the Law Society's statistical report shows that for the academic year of 2001/2002 whilst there were almost 7,500 places available on the LPC there were only 1,600 part time places available. She asked whether the Law Society should consider trying to shift the position and whether there would be any educational and financial advantage in making part time study the norm.
Ms Swan said that her second question is that why did exempting law degrees not take off in a way back in the early nineties as the Law Society felt they would? She also asked why there is only one provider offering the exempting law degree and pointed out that students undertaking the exempting law degrees are financially better off than students who undertake separate undergraduate studies. She said that she would welcome views as to why the exempting law degree model did not really take off at least in numerical terms. She said there is the need to look at the effect "top-up" fees might have on the profession and whether or not there is anything that can be done to manage this? And she raised a question about league tables and said she would welcome views on whether it should be accepted that universities simply want the best and whether they should be left alone to make their own decisions. Another option is whether to try and make some efforts to challenge the league table, but the question here would be whose interest would that serve? She also asked whether the widening participation initiative should be left to the professional bodies alone. She said that the Bar Council and the Law Society are actively pursuing initiatives to counter some of the disadvantages which some students encounter. The Law Society would like to see more mentoring schemes. For example facilitating access for more students to vocational placements schemes. Should the professional bodies do this alone by means of a discrete campaign, or should they build on the excellent initiatives which are taking place in many universities. Finally Ms Swan raised the issue of disability. She said that none of the statistics in the report made any reference to opportunities available to disabled students seeking to join the legal profession.
Mr Bastin said he had read the research that Ms Swan referred to and that it is very similar to the position that exists at the Bar. He said that one interesting thing about recruitment, is that sets of chambers particularly the leading sets of chambers spend a considerable amount of time and effort on the recruitment process. He said that unlike previously, very few chambers ask personal questions (ie whether the boys played rugby at school and when the girls plan to get married). Instead, he said most will give an applicant a legal problem and expect them to discuss it at interview. He asked why there was a higher rate of Oxford and Cambridge students at the Bar than other universities? The Equal Opportunities Committee suggested that there was something wrong with the initial selection process for interview. He said that in view of this statement the Bar commissioned some research and found out that in the recruitment to the Bar, chambers placed a great deal of emphasis on degree classification rather than university attended. This seems to indicate that students from the universities that are under considerable resource pressure are suffering because they do not have the same opportunities that are available to those in the better resourced universities to engage in academic debate with lecturers etc. He said that this may well account for why some students do not perform so well at interview.
The Chairman said that he would not invite members to ask questions or the presentation by Mr Bastin and Ms Swan at that stage as there will be a workshop on it later in the afternoon. He then invited Ms Herzog to make a presentation on the National Occupational Standards (NOS).
Presentation on the National Occupational Standards - Ms Juliet Herzog (LSC)
Ms Herzog explained that she is currently a non-executive commissioner and non-executive member of the Legal Services Commission. She is also in private practice as a solicitor and a partner in a firm which specialises in personal injury litigation. She said that before she qualified as a solicitor, she was a mature entrant to the profession. She also said that before she qualified as a solicitor, she fulfilled a number of other jobs one of which was doing standards development and training as well as vocational qualification and consultancy and in that role she said that she ran a number of large extensive projects developing vocational qualifications for information and library workers and for people who work in museums and galleries. She said that the LSC got involved with the NOS and because of her expertise, she was asked to join the project group as an adviser. After this briefing on her background, Ms Herzog then went on to make her presentations.
The Chairman invited the members to lunch after which they should attend the workshop of their choice.
Open Forum and any other business
The National Occupational Standards for the Legal Advice Sector - feedback
from the workshop (Professor John Bell)
Professor Bell said that in terms of the ambitions of the project, delegates to the workshop looked at the ability of participants to market their services. He said that those with experience often move from one sector of activities to another and it would be useful to be able to identify common elements in different types of activities that would enable participants to move on and progress. He said that another key area that was discussed was the relationship of what would be identified as NOS in the existing standards framework. He said that on the one hand there are some rather specific standards and he gave an example of the police station adviser. He said that where there were a number of standards very specifically developed already, there should be an attempt to build on these. It did not seem sensible to end up in a situation where you have two qualifications required for doing the same job.
Professor Bell felt it was important to have a clear idea of what qualifications/experience would be required in order to be able to operate in particular sectors/areas. Importantly the setting of skills and standards might identify deficiencies of some existing providers. He said that it might be that one has a generic qualification as a solicitor but not in specific areas of expertise or experience. Professor Bell pointed out that the third area which was discussed was the relationship between the NOS and the quality marks. He said that the quality mark is an organisational standard but the ability to use the NOS, which is focussing on the competence of individual might help to provide a more coherent set of standards for organisations that provide particular services.
Professor Bell also explained that the fourth area of discussion at the workshop related to the operation of the project. He said that on the one hand, the building up of these standards would require a lot of talking between individuals and arranging different activities. He gave an example with the area of litigation and said that it would cover not only privately funded advice but also pro bono advice and other activities. It would require an input from people with a wide variety of experience and there may be a lot of input from the Bar as well as solicitors and others in this area. He pointed out that the actual investigator and marking will be done by the project's consultants. He felt it was important that they should look at specific skills and how far they are generally across the range of activities. They should also try to identify qualifications which would be "tradable" from one area of activity to another. He said that the whole process of building a competence based set of qualifications is one that should involve the academic sector. This is because traditional curriculum qualifications are difficult to articulate in competence based frameworks. Finally Professor Bell said the workshop raised a lot of issues rather than coming to any conclusions.
The Chairman asked whether there were any questions or observations from the members. Ms Herzog said there had been a healthy debate in the workshop and a number of useful issues were identified. There were some points which needed to be resolved but this could not be done in a single meeting but will need to be the subject of further thought and discussion.
Widening access to legal education - feedback from the workshop (Ms Mackay)
Ms Mackay said that the workshop considered the points put forward by Ms Swan/Mr Bastin. On the question on why students study full-time instead of part-time, the reason appeared to be that students were in a hurry to qualify and did not want to spend two years doing something that they can do in one year.There was also the feeling that there was a perception in the market that part-time courses were inferior to full-time courses. A possible contributory factor to this reason for this is that the Law Society gives half credit for half of the time spent working while doing a part-time course. Ms Mackay said that there was also some discussions as to whether the current professional courses should be for one year long. She said that there were views that they could be for a shorter term period. On the other hand it was pointed out that the British courses tend to be shorter than the equivalent courses in North America and the rest of Europe. This could have the effect of making UK qualifications look less rigorous in comparison.
Ms Mackay also pointed out that students now accept debts as a way of life and that the level of debts they have does not necessarily serve as a deterrent. She said that the workshop felt the legal aid sector could well be more interested in students studying part-time and integrating that with work for the firm. This could help address the problem of too few people going into legal aid practice. She said that they considered the more traditional law degree courses to other forms of qualification (eg exempting law degree). It appeared that the main reason for opting for a traditional law degree was the fact that most people could not afford an exempting law degree to the relevant standards on the current level of funding. She said that the workshop further discussed the issues of wider participation and fair opportunities to be recruited into training contracts and pupillage. She said it was clear from research that law firms tend to prefer students from good universities for their places and that this is not necessarily linked to the experience of the law degree they may have but the fact that they are good students. She said there was a need to change that perception and to address the issue of what constitutes a good student. She said that nevertheless, there are a core of good students particularly at the post 1992 universities, and that these good students do not always have the opportunities they merit because they are not regarded as being on equal footing as students with similar qualifications from "good" universities.
Ms Mackay said that large firms should be encouraged to look at the business case for considering students from a wider range of universities when they make their recruitment decisions. It is important that any arguments should be based not on the moral issues, but on the business case for taking a wider view of what qualities are required for being a good trainee solicitor or barrister. She said that the workshop ended by looking briefly at the question of disability and that they did not address the league tables. She said that the workshop identified the lack of research around the experience of disabled law students. They noted that UKCLE had an event recently on disability which was aimed at heads of law schools and looked at teaching, learning and assessment implications of implementing the special needs of disabled students. However, the event was poorly attended possibly because many may not be aware of their responsibilities in this area. She said that those who had experience of teaching students with disabilities on professional courses found that in general, they managed the courses well. It was also reported that the professional bodies were in general very receptive to making allowances in terms of assessment schedules and exams etc to accommodate particular disabilities. However, students with disabilities face problems getting employment thereafter as well as training contracts and permanent places. The reason for this she said, is that firms do not want to bear the perceived risk and extra burden of taking on a disabled person.
The Chairman asked Ms Mackay what constituted disability? Ms Mackay replied that there was a broad range of disabilities. Hearing impairment and mobility impairment are seen as very high disability problems. She said that a firm may feel that those with some disabilities may take longer to perform particular tasks.
The Clinical Legal Education Project presented by Professor Hugh Brayne
Professor Brayne began by saying that the project group intends to produce a best practice manual for clinical education in the UK. Professor Brayne also said he intended to investigate links between key players and to bring together a range of participants not just the educators but also the consumers. He said it might be of particular interest to the LSCP, which is a parent body of the conference to take interest in how students learn and the services they are going to give. He said there is a particular interest in trying to find out more about what can be done at the law school stage to foster this approach. He hoped the conference could either contribute or influence the project.
Professor Brayne said the project would welcome contributions. For example, the solicitors Pro Bono group is hosting the website that the project group is going to produce. He also said that the project group would welcome ideas and materials, and that after evaluation the project team would share any results with the widest possible community. He said that this would be done in two stages. The first stage will be for about 18 months while the second stage will run for about 8 years. He said that they would be looking at clinical education/pro bono work in the UK. The project group want to look at where students are doing real service and that the service could include working with a client organisation or simply promoting understanding which is often described as street law. They will also be looking at models, which could include the type of in school legal practice exemplified by places such as Northumbria and Sheffield. He also explained that the project group wants to see what ad hoc initiatives there are that they do not know about and that does not fit into this type of category and whether they are closely involved in the law school curriculum or simply happening despite everything.
Professor Brayne said that a directory was needed because once people can access knowledge, about what is happening, they can choose to learn from it and share the best practice. He also said that to provide information in the form of a directory, may actually conserve energy rather than a lot of people producing the same kind of materials, standards, teaching materials and protocols. He said that on the whole it was hoped that producing a directory of what is going on more activity may follow. He said that as part of stage 1 of the project, the project group would find a small number of providers of clinical legal education. They would then arrange for 5-8 providers to look at different types of clinical legal education within different parts of the country and embedded within different types of educational provisions including degree work and vocational work. The group would then visit and discuss in depth what is going on. They would collect documentation, prepare case studies and protocols and publish these in hard copy and more importantly on line. He said that the information should be useful to law schools, LSC, pro bono groups, social workers, schools and community groups. He said the professional bodies may also find it useful as a reference point.
Professor Brayne said that a more comprehensive picture needs to be mapped out in stage two and that two key questions will be identified that could produce the directory in stage one. He said that stage two will aim to have a large scale survey using the same types of methodology, but refined as a result of the work they hope will have taken place in the 18 months and increased understanding. The outcome in about 3-4 years will be a comprehensive directory. Professor Brayne said that the group is working closely with the UKCLE who supported the project with a small grant and the next opportunity is the Learning Law initiative conference.
The Chairman asked whether anyone had any observations to make. Ms Mackay asked whether the project has any presence on the UKCLE website. Professor Brayne replied that some materials would be going on the web that day.
New Research initiatives in legal education: The Phineas Gage Group - Presented by Ms Caroline Maughan
Ms Caroline Maughan said that the members of the group comprised academic law teachers, professional law teachers, curriculum designers and researchers, all of whom have an interest in legal education. She said that they are all fundamentally concerned about how students learn. She said that there has been recent discoveries in the area of biological and behavioural sciences, which have thrown new light on learning and consciousness and what is conscious/unconscious behaviour and how the brain works. She said that in looking at this the group's findings would take the team beyond behavioural sciences to areas like philosophy as well as social sciences and finally to see what they can apply from these findings to the field of legal education. Ms Maughan said that the project has received two years funding from the UKCLE (although the project may take longer than two years to complete). The group is also looking to set up a website for their use primarily for collecting materials for the research and to open up to interested parties who may want to contribute and find out more about the project.
Ms Maughan explained that in 1848 Phineas Gage was the first person to be documented scientifically who had suffered and survived a major brain damage. He was the first person from whom they learnt a lot about the relationship between personality and damage to the front part of the brain. In 1848, he was setting a charge when building a railroad, which exploded and his hammering iron, which was about three and a half inches long and wide went through his left cheek bone, through to his head and through the outer frontal cortex and out of the other side and landed about 25-30 yards away. She said that he was treated in hospital by a young physician from Harvard who had been interested in brain damage. Ten weeks later, Phineas Gage was fit to return to work but could not get his job back irrespective of the fact that he was an extremely reliable and capable foreman. His personality changed so much so that his friends began to say that this was not the Phineas Gage they knew. Ms Maughan concluded by saying that this was where the group derived the name of the project from. She said that this might sound a bit radical but that the conference might want to invite the group back at some stage to present some findings to the conference.
The Chairman asked how the UKCLE was funded given their generosity. He asked whether it is funded by its members or whether it has some public budget. Ms Tracey Varnava of the UKCLE said that they use the grant they get from HEFCE and that part of their grant has been put over for the funding of projects and research in the field of legal education.
Update on the Consultation Paper issued jointly by the Law Society and the Bar Council - 'The Academic Stage of Training for entry to the Legal Profession in England and Wales': Presented by Julie Swan and Nigel Bastin
The Chairman said that having noted the consultation period for the joint paper has ended he would be grateful if Ms Swan and Mr Bastin could update the conference. Ms Swan said that the Law Society and the Bar Council had issued three joint consultation papers in the summer. Two were on quality assurance arrangements and that the third was on how the two bodies might seek to influence the equality in obtaining qualifying law degrees in the future. She said that responses were still coming in and that nothing has been put together or analysed as yet. She said that it was however apparent that the institutions welcome the proposals on quality assurance.
The Chairman thanked everyone for coming and said that the secretariat is interested in receiving particular topics which might be put forward at the next meeting. He reminded members that the conference is now a full day event and said that if anyone has any representations to make, they should write to Mr Nigel Reeder at the Lord Chancellor's Department.