103 / 274
GAZETTE
JUNE/JULY 1976
at least twice as intensive as the minimum standard
laid down by The Council of Europe in 1972 which
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-
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