Lifting the LETR from the doormat

This morning’s seminar on reforming legal education and training, hosted by Westminster Legal Policy Forum, provided a timely opportunity to reflect on the progress so far of the Legal Education & Training Review (LETR).

The lead for the LETR, Professor Julian Webb, rightly reminded us that the function of the Review is to address the question of how best to regulate legal education and training – specifically, the scope, reach and proportionality of that regulation. He said that, so far, responses to the LETR discussion papers had reflected vested interests, and had demonstrated limited consensus and offered little in the way of alternative vision.

Continue reading

External ownership and the forked tongue of ethics

Nine US general counsel have come to the conclusion, reported in Legal Futures, that there is no need for external ownership of law firms and “that the inevitable chipping away at the profession’s professionalism ultimately will do a disservice not just to the business clients we serve, but to all clients who seek the trusted and confidential advice of counsel”.

I would not presume to disagree with their judgement about their own clients. But I would seriously beg to differ with the general sentiment implicit in the conclusion that ‘non-lawyer’ (I still hate that expression) ownership will necessarily erode professionalism, undermine lawyer-client relationships, compromise confidentiality, and encourage unethical, profit-maximising behaviour. Continue reading

Challenges for the Legal Education and Training Review

If we are to make the most of the opportunity presented by the Legal Education and Training Review, we need to be clear about the background against which it is conducting its work.  We also need to acknowledge the nature of some of the fundamental issues which must be addressed if the review is to be effective and command respect for its conclusions and recommendations.

Continue reading