The Gazette 1976

GAZETTE

JUNE/JULY 1976

at least twice as intensive as the minimum standard laid down by The Council of Europe in 1972 which

tered Accountants and lay down minimum rates to be paid to Apprentices. I do not believe that some Solicitors will be willing to pay a fair wage to Apprentices. There is a certain element among the Profession which is unscrupulous in this regard. 9% of Solicitors in 1975 paid below the minimum wage to employees, and were censored. The Solicitors' Act 1954 is a positive hindrance to the equitable operation of the Apprenticeship system. The rigidity of its provisions tie the Law Society in what it can do in relation to changing the Rules on Apprenticeship. There is great need for the Act to be repealed and a more flexible piece of legislation substi- tuted. The Law Society should be given far more discretion in its dealings with Apprentices. It would perhaps not be a bad move to follow the recommenda- tion of the Ormrod Committee and do away with Apprenticeship altogether. The Committee favoured the implementation of a period of a year during which the student would hold a provisional practising certi- ficate; this would be along the line of a Doctor's Intern Year in a hospital before he gets his full qualification. The advantage of this would be that a Solicitor under the guidance of a partner in a firm could carry out all the tasks of an assistant solicitor and both pupil and master would derive a far greater benefit from this arrangement. Under this system the Trainee Solicitor would have freedom to change jobs. Increases in cost inevitable I also believe that under the new system the cost to the student of qualifying is bound to increase. After he leaves University a student will not be able to obtain any Grants from the Government unless there is a change of Policy on their behalf. This will mean that at the very least he will have to keep himself for an extra year. He will also have to pay fees to the Law Society. At present the very minimum an Apprentice pays for his education to the Incorporated Law Society is £235. Under the new system, because of the increased financial burden on the Law Society, I fear this figure will rise yet again to withstand the present stringent economic conditions. The Law Society has taken on more responsibilities than I think it realizes at present. By opening a fully fleged college they will have to provide the facilities that go with it. For it to be of any benefit to the students any Canteen would have to be subsidised, the Society's Library greatly expanded and other recrea- tional facilities provided. Our Debating Society has for the past 90 years pro- vided a Forum for Apprentices to meet socially as well as serving a very useful educational function. The Society's role should grow rather than contract under the new system. There will be a greater need for the services which it provides and greater use will be made of them by the students. The standards to which we should aim at, as regards Legal Education, have been set by the findings of the Ormrod Committee and the Commission on Higher Education. It is up to the Profession to see that these standards are realised. In this respect my paper has no firm conclusion. In the time left before the opening of the Law School it is up to all interested parties to ensure that the standards in the school are as high as the tradition of the Law Society demands that they should be. The setting up of a New Law School should only be regarded as a start on the road to a comprehensive Legal System. Funds should be provided without delay for establishments like University College Galway to 105

was for a 25 hour lecture Course. New Law School for Apprentices

The provision of a New Law School for Solicitors' Apprentices is a great step forward in Legal Education. 1 have my doubts however that the lot of the Solicitors' Apprentice will be significantly improved by it. The Ormrod Report suggests that the number of unsuccess- ful candidates in examinations in the Vocational Course should be very small. The following comments of Mr. William Osborne at the admission of new Solicitors to the Rolls in December lead me to believe this will happen. He said on that occasion "It might not be possible to find the room for all the students who may wish to qualify as Solicitors in the next 4 to 6 years". If this means that failure rates in the Society Examinations will be kept at an artifically high level, I lay the blame at the door of the Law Society. As early as 1968 Mr. Patrick Noonan the then President of the Society said that "There is going to be a gross over supply of the market in 4 to 5 years." At that time the number of Solicitors on the Rolls was increasing by approximately 100 per annum. It was the Policy of the Law Society at that stage that they would not raise—indeed that they had the duty not to raise—the entrance qualifications to the Profession. If the Law Society wish to keep num- bers down it was then that they should have devised a system to make sure that there was no saturation of the market. To try to limit the number of people qualifying by failure rates such as 78% in First Law, 60% in Second Law and 50% in Third Law, is totally unfair to the Students under the new system. If failure rates are kept high, it will mean that people with Law Degrees might then fail to graduate from the Professional School. They would then find it far more difficult to pursue alternative courses than if they had been refused entry as a school leaver. Abolition of premiums advocated The Law Society with the advent of the New Courses missed a golden opportunity to do away with premiums. In my view there was nothing to prevent them doing so. These premiums constitute a totally unjust exploitation of those in a weak position. 35% of Apprentices are charged premiums. 80% of this number are students with no business or family connections with their Mas- ter. Premiums can be as high as a £1,000 indeed I have personal knowledge of one such case. It has been claimed that under the new system the Apprentice will be an asset to the Master and his firm and won't be charged a fee. I believe that after a couple of years when the number of people entering the Vocational Course reaches a steady number and as it is bound to, demand far outstrips the supply of Solicitors willing to take Apprentices the practice of taking premiums from Apprentices will continue unabated. The Law Society have a clear duty to stop this. Remuneration of Apprentices It is also claimed that under a new system when an Apprentice has finished his Vocational Course and is doing his practical year in an office he will receive remuneration. The Ormrod Report stated "Th at as long as they are called Apprentices, they will not receive remuneration." Except in the more efficient offices who have put Apprenticeship on a business footing already I do not see any great change occuring in the area of remuneration in the near future. I call on the Law Society to follow the example of the Institute of Char-