Skip to main content

Too many law students

As under-graduates are busy causing havoc in London (and incidentally blocking my usual route home) there are growing calls from members of the legal profession to reduce the number of post-graduate students training to become lawyers.

To qualify as a solicitor most people complete a law degree, the Legal Practice Course and two-years of on the job training.  Similarly at the Bar you do your degree, the Bar Finals (they have a new name that I can't remember now) and then one-year on the job training, called a pupillage.  Currently the LPC at BPP Law School costs £12,500 in London and the Bar Course costs an eye watering £14,995.  By the time you get near doing these courses you will have either a law degree, currently costing about £9,000 or a non-law degree (still £9,000) plus the Post Graduate Diploma in Law £8,730.  If I qualified today using the route I took then I would have paid £23,734 just in tuition fees.  That is significantly more than any trainee solicitors will earn on the high street.

Shortly the first degree will cost £27,000 for a three year course, giving a total to qualify as a solicitor of £39,500 (the route I took would cost £50,725).  At a rate of about £250 p/m repayments and ignoring interest completely, a debt of £39,500 will take more than 13-years to repay.  If you pass your LPC when you're aged 23 then you will still be repaying the debt when you are 36-years-old.  Most people by then would have hoped to have bought a house, but what responsible lender will give a loan to somebody with all that debt?

Add to that the unfortunate but simple truth that the vast majority of hopeful lawyers-to-be will never qualify!  Of the 30-odd people in my class on the Bar course just two of us are in practice! This is something that the colleges running the LPC and Bar Finals never seem to mention to their students... at least not before they stump up their first tuition fee payment.

Maybe it is time that students are prevented from undertaking the LPC and Bar Finals until such time as they have secured a training contract of pupillage.  It may not be nice, but it might be in their best interests.  Otherwise there really will be a generation of students with too many useless qualifications and a mountain of debt they will never be able to repay.


  1. Seems to me the rising fees should solve the problem

  2. I don't think it will. What it will do is further skew the demographic of the legal profession to ensure that the only people who enter it are those with private means, not necessarily those who are the most talented.

    Given the current suspicion that vast swathes of the legal profession are out of step with the rest of society, I can't see that helping.

  3. I also think that the huge fees will mean more people from wealthy families going into some areas of law. It won't happen with legal aid cases as most wealthy people seem to prefer commercial or other high earning areas. In mt experience I would say that 90% of legal aid solicitors are from ordinary (non-privilleged) backgrounds - I was born in Mile End, the fourth child of a postman and (at the time) a nursery nurse who lived in a council house until they bought their first home when I was about 5.

    A very large number of ethnic minority lawyers work in legal aid areas of law, a lot of them trying to help their communities as well as the wider public.

  4. I agree that the profession needs to be cruel to be kind to aspiring entrants. For a great profession the law seems to be badly mismanaging its young and potential members. The double whammy of reduced demand for legal services and over-supply of law graduates is going to take a decade or more to sort out. I spoke to a partner in a large provincial partner about it the other day. His reply was to shake his head and mutter "it's simply over-supply".

  5. make that 'provincial firm' - sorry.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…