1.49 Much of the research team’s work involved stakeholder engagement activities. These were designed both to inform stakeholders about LETR issues and progress, and to enable stakeholders to engage with the research and contribute additional information to the process. Stakeholder engagement activities included:
• stakeholder responses to LETR publications;
• CSP meetings and advice;
• the LETR Symposium;
• events and meetings attended by research team members and organised by the team or by others.
PUBLISHED DEADLINE
RESPONSES PAPER
1.50 Over the course of the research the LETR team published 12 papers: four Discussion Papers, six Briefing Papers and two Research Updates. A summary of all the papers is provided in Appendix C, and copies of the papers are downloadable from the LETR website.
1.51 The Discussion Papers were the most significant in contributing to the data. Three Discussion Papers were designed to identify trends and questions, and to explore issues for the Review in a way that encouraged response and debate. They were drafted in the context of the other work undertaken by the research team. DP02/2011 (Equality, Diversity and Social Mobility) thus fed into both the equality and diversity impact analysis, and wider discussion of appropriate systems and structures; DP01/2012 (Key Issues I: Call for Evidence) and DP02/2012 (Key Issues II: Developing the Detail) provided a significant iterative development and testing of themes emerging from the fieldwork. All responses to Discussion Papers have been included in the NVivo database and analysed as part of that dataset. The original responses are available in full on the LETR website, except where the response was provided on condition of non-disclosure.
1.52 A summary of the responses to DP01/2012 was included in DP02/2012. The number and range of responses to the three substantive Discussion Papers, DP02/2011, DP01/2012 and DP02/2012 are shown in Table 1.5. It should be noted that the majority of these are institutional or collective responses, so that the number of organisations or persons represented is greater than the numbers suggest. The numbers in brackets indicate the number of personal (individual) responses in each category. A full list of respondents is contained in Appendix A.
Table 1.5: Number and breakdown of responses to LETR Discussion Papers
KEY
Reg regulator
Rep representative body
LSP legal services provider (eg, a law firm) Acd academic institutions
Trn training providers IG interest group
Eq equality and diversity group Oth other.
Reg Rep LSP Acd Trn IG Eq Oth Tot
02/2011 23.4.12 02.7.12 1 4 4 1 2 1 2 0 15
(1)
01/2012 12.3.12 10.5.12 2 6 9 12 2 1 0 3 35
(2) (1) (1)
02/2012 28.8.12 23.10.12 2 10 6 12 1 3 0 5 39
(4) (1)
Consultation Steering Panel meetings
1.53 The LETR CSP is mentioned above at 1.4. As noted there the function of the CSP was consultative and advisory. Its remit was to act as a ‘critical friend’ to the research team and as a bridge between the research phase and the key stakeholders whom members represent.
1.54 Six meetings of the CSP were held from July 2011 through to November 2012. The meetings were used to test ideas, present and discuss work in progress, and to provide a forum within which members and the research team could learn about relevant
developments within LSET, or in other professional service sectors. A number of ‘external’
(ie, non-research team) presentations were made to the CSP that have contributed to the work of the research team:
• Emma Matthews (Architects Registration Board), The regulation of architects - standards and continuing professional development (March 2012);
• Charles Welsh (Skills for Justice), Setting standards and apprenticeships for those performing paralegal functions (March 2012);
• David Dixon (Cardiff Law School), Legal education and training - the Welsh dimension (June 2012);
• Richard Moorhead (UCL), Are there LETR lessons from empirical approaches to ethics?
(September 2012);
• Victoria Purtill (ILEX Professional Standards) CPD Review: Proposed changes to CPD for members of CILEx (September 2012);
• Sara Kovach Clark (General Medical Council), Medical revalidation (November 2012).
1.55 CSP agendas, notes of meetings and slides from presentations are located on the LETR website. Other information arising from CSP meetings has helped inform the research team’s views and enabled the team to gauge the level of receptiveness towards ideas in the course of development.
LETR Symposium and external events
1.56 An international symposium entitled Assuring Competence In A Changing Legal Services Market was held in Manchester in July 2012. The conference comprised a range of keynote and parallel presentations. Keynotes were presented by Professor Julia Black (London School of Economics), Steve Mark (Legal Services Commissioner, New South Wales), Professor Richard Susskind (independent LETR research consultant) and
Professor Wes Pue (University of British Columbia). Two sets of parallel sessions were also held. The first of these involved presentations and discussion on themes relevant to the review, including: the changing workforce; new business structures; CPD reform;
apprenticeships and workplace learning; innovation in undergraduate education; lessons from other professions and from Europe, and consumer perspectives on LSET. The second set of parallel sessions explored, in a workshop setting, a set of scenarios for the regulation of LSET developed by the research team.
1.57 The keynote papers and summaries of the parallel and workshop sessions have been published as Briefing Paper 4/2012, and contribute to the literature base that informs the research. Slides from the presentations are also available on the LETR website.
1.58 In addition, members of the research team attended a range of meetings, seminars and events during the course of the research. Where these were accompanied by formal publications or other record of note, these have been included within the bibliography. A list of all external events attended by members of the research team and/or the CSP Co-Chairs appears in Appendix C.
whole, identify the evidence on which those findings are based, and present a range of recommendations for the approved regulators and the Legal Services Board. The chapters follow the development and interplay of the themes identified: context, content, and systems.
1.60 Chapter 2 looks at the background to, and current context of, legal education and training, contrasting the model of training for barristers and solicitors with those of the other professions and offers some evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of current approaches.
1.61 Chapter 3 focuses on trends in the legal services market and the changing regulatory landscape. The implications for LSET of projected legal workforce needs are considered, together with the emergence of new roles for regulated professionals and paralegals and key developments in the unregulated sector.
1.62 Drawing on comparative research on other professions and in other jurisdictions, Chapter 4 focuses on the identification and signalling of competence in legal services. It looks at the range of appropriate competencies or learning outcomes and the need to close perceived knowledge and skills gaps. The chapter concludes by exploring the setting of standards and the need for relevant and robust assessment practices.
1.63 Chapter 5 develops the theme of assuring competence for the future, and considers the role of regulated titles and how title based regulation may be supported or supplanted by more entity- or activity-based approaches. It looks at ways to increase the flexibility of routes to qualification, and the possibility of more common or integrated training between the different legal professions. It also considers the relative roles of CPD and re-accreditation in assuring continuing competence. The chapter concludes by discussing the contribution of quality assurance processes to maintaining competent performance.
1.64 Chapter 6 focuses on four issues critical to the future development of LSET: the promotion of fair access; the assurance of continuing competence through enhanced supervised practice and a revised approach to CPD, and the possibility of increased regulation or quality recognition for paralegals. The chapter concludes by exploring a range of institutional changes intended to support information flows and cultural change in the future regulation of LSET.
1.65 Chapter 7 summarises key findings and conclusions drawn from the research set against an equality impact assessment. It also sets out the recommendations for the regulatory bodies and identifies areas requiring further research.
References
ACLEC (1996). First Report on Legal Education and Training. Retrieved from http://www.ukcle.
ac.uk/resources/he-policy/aclec/
ACLEC (1997). Continuing Professional Development for Solicitors and Barristers: A Second Report on Legal Education and Training. Retrieved from http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/resources/
he-policy/aclec/
Bar Standards Board (2008). Review of the Bar Vocational Course: Report of the Working Group.
Retrieved from https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media/1353435/bvc_report_final_
with_annexes_as_on_website.pdf
Bar Standards Board (2010). Review of Pupillage: Report of the Working Group. Retrieved from https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media/1383787/pupillage_report.pdf
Bar Standards Board (2011). Review of Continuing Professional Development Consultation Paper on the proposed new system for CPD. Retrieved from http://www.barstandardsboard.org.
uk/media/938837/cpd_consultation_-_31_may_2011_final.pdf
BDRC Continental (2012). Legal Services Benchmarking. Retrieved from https://research.
legalservicesboard.org.uk/wp-content/media/2012-Individual-consumers-legal-needs-report.pdf
Brown, V.A. (2010). Conducting an imaginative transdisciplinary inquiry. In Brown, Harris & Russell (eds), Tackling Wicked Problems. London: Earthscan.
Edmonds, D. (2010). Training the Lawyers of the Future: A Regulator’s View. Lord Upjohn Lecture, November 2010. Retrieved from http://www.legalservicesboard.org.uk/news_publications/
speeches_presentations/2010/de_lord_upjohn_lec.pdf
Marre (1988). A Time for Change. Report of the Committee on the Future of the Legal Profession.
To the General Council of the Bar and the Council of the Law Society. London: Bar Council and Law Society.
Nowotny, H. Scott, P. & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.
Ormrod Report (1971). Report of the Committee on Legal Education. Cmnd. No.4595. London:
HMSO
Rittel, H. & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-69.
Savery, J.R. & Duffy, T.M. (1995). Problem-based learning: an instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31-37.
Sherr, A. (1991). Solicitors and their Skills - A Study of the Viability of Different Research Methods for Collating and Categorising the Skills Solicitors Utilise in their Professional Work. Research Study, No. 6. London: Law Society.
Watson, D. (2000). Managing in higher education: the wicked issues. Higher Education Quarterly, 54, 5-21.
Wegner, J.W. (2009). Reframing legal education’s ‘wicked problems’. Rutgers Law Review, 61(4), 867-915.
Weick, K.E. (1984). Small wins: redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39(1), 40-49.