I have to say I agree with Kevin. While the current system is undoubtedly flawed, I do not believe that the introduction of further restrictions on people who genuinely want to study and practice law is the answer.
The true limitation should be market demand. Sarah mentions that perhaps the Law Society could make it more attractive for firms to take on more apprentices, but I really do not see how this would improve matters. At the end of the day, what would be the point in creating yet more apprenticeship places when the market place is already flooded with newly qualified solicitors who cannot find work. As for capping the number of people who sit the FE1s, I cannot see how this would be workable either. Do you restrict the number according to academic results? To people who have recognised law degrees? To people who have already secured training contracts? Given the widespread perception that these are often secured on the basis of contacts, surely this would only exasperate matters in that regard. Therefore, do you somehow regulate the basis for awarding apprenticeships? Again, this really wouldn't be practical. We all know that in reality just because a person may have obtained impressive academic results, this does not necessarily mean that they will have the requisite people skills for practising as a solicitor, which generally involves a great deal of client contact. As pointed out by many people already, we are already subject to many seemingly unduly restrictive limitations such as the two limitation periods, the rule of three in the FE1s etc, which presumably are designed to curb numbers (and call me cynical, but are coincidentally a handy money spinner for the Law Society). I agree with Sarah that it may seem "like it is an easy route for graduates who have no other clear cut ambition, esp if they have contacts", but I think we are all only too aware that the opposite is true. It is not an easy route at all, even if you are hell-bent on practising law. I do not think sparing the time and money of those who are doing it as an "easy option" or for glamour's sake and haven't taken time to research the reality of the profession, warrants the imposition of further restrictions on those of us who genuinely want to practice law. What I would like to see is a more transparent approach to the FE1s by the Law Society. It is clear from the exam reports that the amount of people who pass each exam is in or around the 48% mark on a consistent basis (obviously this varies from subject to subject, and from sitting to sitting). I would be in favour of the Law Society capping the number of people who PASS the exams (as they are most likely doing this anyway) and clearly state, for example, that the highest 300 results in each exam will be considered to have passed. Thereby, if you wish to pursue a career in law, you will not be precluded from attempting to do so on the basis of some arbitrary restriction. However, you will be more informed of your chances of success prior to parting a minimum of €840. Also it would mean that the Law Society would not automatically be cutting their income (something I imagine they would be reluctant to do), thus reducing the risk of increased PPC fees to counteract any such loss. Also I would advocate that all candidates should have an opportunity to view their paper, and the marking scheme. I'm sure that they would probably charge for this, it would mean more income for them, but at least you wouldn't be blindly resitting exams or paying for rechecks, without doing so on the basis of a reasonable evaluation of your paper outside of exam circumstances, rather than handing over money in blind hope. While there is clearly a lot of room for improvement in the current system, I do not believe a knee-jerk restriction on access to the profession is the correct way to go about it. On Feb 19, 3:46 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > "It doesnt make sense that there is no limit > to the amountt of students that can sit the exams with no regard to > the future of those students." > > I certainly agree with all the sentiments herein. However, just > imagine if there were such limits and you found yourself on the wrong > end of a cut-off point? I think its just the way everything has been > going that regulatory bodies can't just limit access to professions. > The logic is that markets should do that - if the job is unattractive, > no-one will do it. If people are trying to do, it must be > attractive. But I think that works best on assumptions of perfect > information. Our real gripe, I think, is that people still have, as > you rightly say, the over-glamourised view of the job. I would hate > to see, however, any introduction of caps or limits. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
