header-logo header-logo

02 December 2016
Issue: 7726 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Bar Professional Training Course could be split

Training for barristers could be split into two parts under proposals to shake up the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) to make entry to the Bar more affordable.

The Bar Council and Council of the Inns of Court have proposed that the 30-week BPTC, which costs £15,000-£19,000, no longer be compulsory. Instead, the BPTC would be split into: part one, knowledge-based subjects, namely civil and criminal procedure and evidence; and part two, skills such as drafting, advocacy and conferencing.

Students would be able to prepare for part one exams “by any method they think fit or can afford”, including private study. If they passed part one, they would be allowed to move on to part two, which would require formal attendance on a BPTC course.

The proposal is made in an addendum to the Bar Standards Board’s October 2016 consultation paper, The future of training for the Bar. Interested parties have until 31 January 2017 to respond.

In support of their proposal, the Council and Bar Council say: “The Inns and the Bar Council have a genuine fear, based on their direct contacts with school-leavers, university students and the Inns’ own student members, that the Bar is becoming a profession for the social ‘haves’ which excludes the ‘have nots.’”

They make the point that the BPTC has a high risk of failure. Of the 2012/13 students, 30 months after completing the taught course, 15% had failed and 7% had exams outstanding. The self-employed and employed Bar appoint just over 400 pupils per year, and a student who passes the course with a “competent” rating (rather than “outstanding” or “very competent”) has a one in 20 chance of obtaining pupillage.

They argue that splitting the course would reduce the overall costs for students and act as an early warning signal to students unlikely to do well.

However, Helen Hudson, head of legal development at Nottingham Law School (part of Nottingham Trent University), said: “The proposals appear to divorce the key elements required for effective practice. The integration of the various elements of practical legal skills is essential if we are to produce effective practitioners.”

Issue: 7726 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll