header-logo header-logo

11 February 2021
Issue: 7920 / Categories: Legal News , Training & education , Profession
printer mail-detail

CILEx shakes up legal market with solicitor-equivalent CPQ

Institute to offer solicitor-equivalent qualification for a third of the price

The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) has launched a less expensive rival to the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE).

The CPQ (CILEx Professional Qualification) will have three levels―Foundation, which is aligned to the role of a paralegal; Advanced, for those handling cases at an advanced paralegal level; and Professional, for those who want to be CILEx Lawyers.

A CILEx Lawyer will have equivalent rights to a solicitor within their particular practice area. Eight specialisations will be available initially, including litigation, employment, private client and conveyancing.

The whole process, including training, assessment and course materials, costs £12,500. By comparison, CILEX estimates the SQE route will cost students about £40,000.

Each stage is likely to take between 18 months and two years; therefore the full qualification could be achieved in five to six years. Students with law degrees or postgraduate legal qualifications can potentially join at the end of Advanced level and qualify in two to three years. Students will combine work with study, thereby earning while they learn. Current Chartered Legal Executives can take a conversion course.

Linda Ford, CILEx CEO, said she expected an initial cohort of 400 students to start in June, subject to Legal Services Board approval at Easter time. Another 400 students are expected to start at the Advanced stage.

‘We consulted with employers in private practice, in-house and in local government about what they needed, such as commercial and legal tech skills, and tailored accordingly,’ Ford said.

‘Our view is some opportunities have been missed with the SQE and there is an issue about how accessible it actually is, when students require a degree. We also think they missed a chance to review the solicitor standard, and could have listened more to employers, for example, about the need for business and legal tech skills.’  

Issue: 7920 / Categories: Legal News , Training & education , Profession
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ling Ong, London Market FOIL

NLJ Career Profile: Ling Ong, London Market FOIL

Ling Ong, partner at Weightmans and president of London Market FOIL, discusses her biggest inspirations, the challenges of AI and the importance of tackling unconscious bias

DWF—Imogen Francis

DWF—Imogen Francis

Director and head of IP team joins in Birmingham

Penningtons Manches Cooper—five promotions

Penningtons Manches Cooper—five promotions

Firm boosts partnership and costs practice with five senior promotions

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll