LPC spam

I received an email a while back from ‘Young Lawyer’ about the LPC course run by BPP. I didn’t think much of it at the time.

But having cleared out my inbox recently (I go through phases when I’ll delete 1000 or so emails en masse), I came across it again, and this time it grated on me a bit.

Seriously... spam for the LPC – what’s the world coming to?

In fact, it reminded me an awful lot of the time when I bought an iron from Amazon. A few days after it had arrived, I received an email from Amazon with a product list of their 20 top selling irons.

I’d just bought the frickin’ thing – what did they think I wanted? TWO irons? One for each hand?

Geez, Louise.

But this isn’t their only LPC-themed mass mailing. I also stumbled across a “write an essay for their competition and win a place on the LPC” email from 2010.

OK, never mind the fact there was a second email, the LPC is the PRIZE?

I’ve always thought of the LPC as more a punishment than a prize. Don’t tell me writing the essay was the treat?

Law School Magazine

I hate the pompous drivel that make up so many law school magazines - created and edited by the usual Machiavellian chancers who will no doubt go on to become parish councillors in later life.

Other law schools don’t even bother with that.  They just dump a stack of copies of the Student Law Review on a table in the foyer and leave it at that.

But enough is enough.  There’s a gap in the market which needs a-filling and I think I’m the right kind of cynical sod to do it. 

So here’s the first edition of ‘The Law School Today’ – the law school magazine with a difference. I think we’ve got a cracking line up of features.

Everyone's Feeling the Pressure

It's that time of year again. The tension and pressure on us poor law students is so palpable you could almost reach out and grab hold of it. Yes, exams are looming, stretching ahead like a barren wasteland of doom, gloom, hard work, and sleepless night.  And by the time we're into May, sore-finger-itis sets in: our poor hands are left raw and cramping - a symptom of gripping pens too tightly and writing too much in too short a space of time. Revising becomes the number one objective and all of us get more than a little uptight, fraught and tetchy as the days of untold torture unravel. As our tempers get shorter and our patience evaporates, co-habiting with a revising law student can prove a living nightmare.

And let's face it: it's an awful time.  A time when we students can frequently be found in a semi-delirious state, chain smoking with strained, bloodshot eyes and tousled hair, slumped over textbooks and surrounded by reams of paper. And some people reckon that life as a law student is easy?!

So how are some of the ‘regulars’ bearing up?

Legal Lass admits to being 'in the revision zone' something we're all sadly well-accustomed with. At least she’s ‘in the zone’ though – more than some of us, I’m sure. She does, however, relish the opportunity of spending all day in her pyjamas.

Andro is feeling the exam-time squeeze and posted a picture of a bunny being bathed as an indication of her own expression after a gruelling exam. She's also finding the tedium of revising aspects of the Civil Procedure Rules a headache. I'm sure we can all sympathise with that.

ASP is still posting as frequently as ever it seems. He’s pushing out content 2 or 3 times a day on occasions and seems largely unperturbed by the impending exams. The guy’s just relentless in his posting.

Lacklustre Lawyer is not only struggling with an intense workload but seeking a burst of inspiration as to the career path he should choose. And boy, do I know what that’s like!

Susie Law School - (yes, who still doesn't like to Law Actually) second 'nudge nudge' of the year - is documenting the progress of her exams, LPC style. I stopped blogging about my experiences on the LPC long ago. It was bad enough living the experience without raking over the coals on Law Actually.

Law Girl has apparently gone to ground during this 'busy spell' for law students. Pretty sensible, if you ask me.

Minxy's posting frequency has dropped a little of late, a testament, no doubt to her gruelling workload and the pressing time of the year. As ever, though, the number of comments to her posts remains startlingly high!!

As for Law Actually - well, I'm hoping to keep my posting fairly frequent in the coming weeks. I eased off a little last year on both my blogs, although to be fair, Law Actually wasn't properly 'bedded in' at that point. But I abandoned F1 Central for the entire revision period. This year, it seems, I've more or less abandoned it full-stop.

Facebook, Jurors and the 'Virtual Veil'

From Guardian.co.uk: 18.11.08:

A female juror was dismissed from a trial after posting details of the case on Facebook and asking friends whether they thought the defendants were guilty.

The woman went against strict rules forbidding jurors from discussing cases with family and friends by posting details of the sexual assault and child abduction trial on the social networking site.

After her actions were discovered, she was removed from the case at Burnley crown court, in Lancashire, and the trial continued with a jury of 11 people.

A Courts Service spokesman said today: "A juror was dismissed from a case on November 18 for discussing a case outside the court."

It’s been quite a while since I’ve posted a Facebook related entry so this one seemed an obvious choice. For what it’s worth, I’ve largely given up with my Facebook-bashing, as I got sick with it falling so invariably on ‘deaf ears’. I get it: the world loves Facebook and only I don’t. Oh well.

The story does, though, highlight interesting behavioural patterns when people are online, particularly when engaged in social networking activities. I think it shows up a serious divide in many people’s brains over regulating their actions in the real world and the online one. Did the juror really think she’d get away with it? Did she think that her ‘online persona’ is so divorced from reality that any actions carried out online would not be attributed to her real ‘human’ person? It’s almost as though some people view their online conduct as being separated from reality by a ‘virtual veil’, which their real, human person can hide behind without fear of being troubled by disagreeable repercussions that flow from the actions of their ‘online person’. You know, something analogous to the 'corporate veil' which derives from the twin pillar characteristics that a company is blessed with: separate legal personality and limited liability. No?! Anyone?! No, my girlfriend wasn’t interested either.

Sidenote: I’ve become more than a little bored with studying the majestic intricacies surrounding the corporate veil and its lifting, piercing or otherwise penetrating for what seems like an eternity in my Company law module. It still amuses me that on the LPC in Business Law and Practice it was merely mentioned in passing with perhaps two sentences dedicated to the topic. On the LL.M, though, we’ve dissected it to absolute death and then some, more or less from the start of term. God, I love academia.

Is gaining a legal qualification still worth the cost?

Having stupidly subscribed to the ‘Junior Lawyers’ e-mail list at some point in the distant past, I stumbled across this rather interesting poll earlier today:

 

Wow: 61% voted No.  I knew sentiment was strong out there regarding the exorbitant qualification fees for the legal profession but, I have to admit, I was predicting the ‘Yeses’ to have it – if only by a narrow margin.  To be clear, scanning through the comments on the site, most seem to refer to the LPC rather than ‘academic’ law degrees which has clearly shaped their thinking in the cost versus gain equation.  I’m sure there are many BVC students lurking out there who share similar sentiments regarding the perceived value of their professional qualification. 

For what it’s worth, the comments, such as they are, seem to pretty much stem from mature students with hard-luck stories.  While I guess the nature of their general situation is a little different from that of the masses, there’s no getting away from it: there’s a lot of dissatisfaction out there.

Is it time for legal education to join the 21st Century?

I still find it astounding that here we are, well into the 21^st century, and Legal Practice Course (LPC) providers are still treating technology as an afterthought. For instance, why on earth are the core skills of writing and drafting on the LPC taught and examined through handwritten exercises instead of using computers?

The same goes with research. The paper versions of Halsbury’s are cute and all that, but lawyers of the future shouldn’t groomed in becoming experts in carting those unwieldy tombs around. They should be embracing technology and the advantages it offers them.

Netbooks are as cheap as chips and there’s no reason why exams which use computers rather than the traditional answer books offer any more potential for cheating than the current system which obsesses with pens and paper. If providers are worried about cheating they can block access to the internet, disable wireless functionality and superglue up USB ports if they’re so inclined.

Skills on the Legal Practice Course and the Bar Professional Training Course, should be taught and examined in the context in which students will find themselves once they’ve left the cosy nest of academia. LPC providers love to proclaim how their course ‘mimics reality’ of legal practice and some even go as far as calling tutors ‘supervising principals’. I don’t think anyone’s taken-in by the label for a moment.

But with all this supposed focus on practicality, why is there an obsession with handwritten scripts still holding sway? How often these days does a lawyer mark up a draft contract by hand and send it back via snail-mail as a travelling draft? The world has had a funny thing called email for quite some time now.

It can’t be right that fundamental skills and functionality that students will need out there in the big bad world is given such short shrift. Here’s a classic example. I remember on the LPC that after we’d finished our initial drafting exercises (by hand, of course), the lecturer introduced the ‘track changes’ feature in Word during a rushed 5 minutes at the end of the session. Looking around the room, it was clear some people were seeing this ‘track changes’ for the first time which is scary in itself, but the real crime is committed by LPC providers by not focussing on the skill of drafting within context of a word processing program. Here was functionality that students would be using day-to-day out there in practice, yet it was treated as an afterthought. And having spoken to others on other LPC courses, their experiences were exactly the same.

And this isn’t just hyperbolic venting; there is a real impact on the future of the profession at play here. If would-be lawyers aren’t being trained in the use of fundamental tools of their work, something is clearly wrong. I remember several students were amazed that they could change the case of text in Microsoft Word once it had been typed. One student (who was actually in practice as a paralegal at the time) admitted that in that situation, she used to delete the relevant text and then retype it in CAPITALS. That is just scary. Lawyers still routinely bill per hour; would her potential clients be getting good value for money whilst she went through her deletion and retyping sequence?

Granted, the practice of law is regarded much like driving and driving tests; you are taught the basics so you’re proficient enough to get out there and develop your skills where you really learn the art of the skill over time. That takes a lot of practise and LPC providers teaching candidates how to be ‘good lawyer’ is an aspiration rather than an realistically achievable goal. But practising word processing skills likely to be needed in practice can most certainly be taught in a classroom.

Law schools often drag experts in from Lexis and Westlaw to impart a few tricks of the trade to students. Why isn’t the same done with word processing programs? Maybe time should be dedicated to teaching the ins and outs of complex multilevel lists and how to edit them without losing your mind. How about the teaching students the art of using cross-referencing functionality which can update references to clauses in an agreement as they are subsequently amended? Wouldn’t that make so much sense?

It’s such a no-brainer. Ensuring LPC students are proficient with word processing programs rather than just assuming it, would allow future lawyers to minimise the amount of the time and effort involved in wrestling with software that they don’t properly know how to use and concentrate on, you know, actually practicing law.

I’m still tickled by the fact my LPC foundations manual told me how to compose an email, how I should deal with snotty responses from fellow professionals, as well as telling me I should get some fresh air at lunch time to manage my stress levels. But using core functionality of computer programs which are mission-critical to a lawyer’s day job didn’t even get a look-in.

Isn’t it time the LPC joined the 21^st century?

Reforming Legal Education: Death of the Training Contract

From The Law Gazette 24/02/10:

Could a new holistic approach to training solicitors, being trialed by Northumbria University Law School in partnership with national firm Irwin Mitchell, be the future of legal education?

The Master of Law (Solicitor) degree combines the academic, vocational and training stages of qualification as a solicitor. At the end of the full-time, five-year degree course graduates can apply to the SRA for enrolment as a solicitor.

The course, made possible by an SRA initiative and designed to pilot work-based learning as a means of increasing access to the legal profession, incorporates a qualifying law degree with the legal practice course and work-based learning replacing the training contract.

Increasing access to the profession is no doubt important in the light of recent surveys that have revealed the legal profession to be drawn from increasingly narrow sections of society, but could this new form of qualification create a two-tier system in which some are regarded as inferior?

Or will this route catch on and herald the end of the training contract?

It’s not just fears of creating a two-tier structure with one seen as inferior to the other but this throws up a range of other issues, too. For instance, how exactly does the vocational element work and how is performance in that stage of it best assessed? How are positions allocated: do a range of firms essentially sign up to offer placements to candidates and they’re taken on a first-come, first-served basis? What if they later withdraw? At what stage in the process is a position on the vocational element of the course allocated?

And this kind of degree is absolutely fine for those who have their career plans mapped out nicely from the start but what about those who think they’ll love the practice of law only to find they wish to pursue academic law? For me, there are question marks over the interchangeability of the constituent elements of the degree – are they subject to the same credit transfer rules, particularly once the student has partially completed the vocational stage?

Also, I’m presuming this is an optional means of qualifying. To allow the legal education system sufficient flexibility and fairness it should only be seen as another way of qualifying – not THE way. One advantage of the current building-block system is that students have a plethora of options available to actively pick and choose and shape their legal education and career as they see fit.

Many students experience a change of heart during their degrees and often wind up doing different things from what they ever imagined.

I’m all for reforming legal education but I’m just not convinced this is the right way to go about it.

SRA passes up chance of aptitude tests for LPC

From Roll on Friday 04/02/11:

Kaplan Law School has had its proposed aptitude test for the LPC squashed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). That's despite hopes that an entry test might raise the quality of the LPC intake and stop less able students throwing away good money on a course that would not ultimately lead anywhere.

Amen to that.

Sadly even [the] mildest of barriers to entry was too draconian for the SRA, which has refused to validate the move. So, rather predictably and depressingly, just about anyone with a degree and a pot of gold will still be able to start the LPC this year.

I realise that entry tests have been mooted for the LPC for years – and even more so since the massive supply/demand quotients of students / training contracts fell so far out of kilter. But this just seems like a really, really good idea. Yes, it might mean more stress, it might be gruelling, it might slap some people down and prevent them from immediately progressing to the next stage in their careers. But let’s face it: if it saves a bunch of students from blowing 8 to 15 grand for a big fat nothing, maybe it’s better being cruel to be kind.

Just a thought.

Shorter, Super Intense LPC: When 7 into 9 just doesn’t go

From The Lawyer 10/01/11:

BPP Law School has bowed to student demands by becoming the first LPC provider to launch a fast-track LPC to all students, beginning in August 2011.

The condensed course will cram the standard nine-month offering into seven months, but will cost the same (£12,500 in London) and require students to have shorter study breaks, working through the summer and winter holidays.

BPP dean Peter Crisp said: “We’re moving away from the mindset that programmes should be designed around the needs of the ­faculty rather than around the needs of students.

“I think students are going to welcome the opportunity to do the course in a shorter timeframe and will welcome the flexibility, enjoy the intensity of the programme and be ­better prepared for work.”

Enjoy the intensity? Are you kidding me?

Be better prepared for work? Well in the sense they’re absolutely ran into the ground, thoroughly burnt out and on the cusp of an unhealthy psychosis, yes, this new super-intense LPC will prepare students beautifully for the world of work.

 

The new course will differ from the accelerated ­consortium LPC as it will use the same content as the standard LPC without the City firms’ tailor-made additional subjects. It will, however, have some extra weekly preparation work and face-to-face teaching sessions.

The course will run twice yearly, but access will be ­limited by a minimum entry requirement of a 2:1 degree [and a propensity for torture presumably?]

Never mind that; I think it should come with a compulsory psychological assessment!!!

 

Crisp added: “It will be intensive and not necessarily for all students, as some will find it a struggle and need more time to absorb information to apply skills.”

The fast-track course is subject to validation by the SRA.

I don’t really get the point of this course; 7 months rather than 9 months is hardly a huge saving. Are those 8 weeks really that important?

And isn’t the LPC intense enough? The regular course isn’t exactly sedate. I can understand the desire to get through it as quickly as possible but I think this is an instance where 7 into 9 just won’t go.

I think the LPC is one of those get-through-it-at-all-costs courses, where there are few points awarded for style.  But is it really a good idea to make things even more difficult for yourself going hell-for-leather to get through the academic phase of your career as quickly as possible?

Anyhow, as an aside, some of the comments in the article are superbly funny:

“Great, that means all those LPC graduates without a Training Contract can get on the dole 2 months sooner”

You cynic!

 

“softies the lot of them ... :)
bring back the LSF [Law Society Finals] - let's have some exams worthy of the name; they'll soon be giving away legal qualifications inside cereal boxes”

Ah... no post would be complete without a “in my day” type of comment! ;-)

 

“Requirement of a 2:1 degree in what? basketweaving, applied drama, needlework? Come on, everyone knows that a 2:1 these days is no guarantee of quality. Peter Crisp needs to wake up and realise that BPP know nothing about creating lawyers, only making money.”

Oooh. Talk about lighting the blue touch paper...