header-logo header-logo

09 June 2016
Issue: 7703 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Future Bar training

While the Solicitors Qualifying Exam has stalled, the Bar Standards Board (BSB) is forging ahead with discussions on how to train the next crop of barristers.

Last week, the Solicitors Regulation Authority extended this month’s deadline for its decision in principle—the details are due to be ironed out at a later stage—on whether to introduce the exam. It will now take a decision in spring 2017, with the exam not in place until the 2019/2020 academic year at the earliest, if it goes ahead at all. Its proposals have so far been met with fierce opposition from universities and training providers.

Over at the Bar, however, three options for qualification have been proposed. The “evolutionary” option focuses on liberalising the training and increasing flexibility but would otherwise keep the qualification route as it is. The “managed pathways” option would keep the existing route to qualification but add three other routes: combined law degree and vocational training; vocational training programme integrated with pupillage; and a modular approach where candidates commit to training one step at a time. The “Bar specialist” option proposes a qualifying exam, open to any candidate—successful candidates would then undergo a training course shorter than the Bar Professional Training Course.

Next month, the BSB will host a debate, The Future Bar Training. Guest speakers will give presentations on the possible options. Register your interest for the event on 7 July at futurebartraining@barstandardsboard.org.uk.

The BSB will launch a consultation later this year, with a view to implementing the changes from the 2018-19 academic year.  

BSB director of education and training, Dr Simon Thornton-Wood, says: “By introducing a more flexible route to qualification, we hope to ensure future access to the profession in a way that enables candidates from all walks of life to consider a career at the Bar. The future of Bar training should ensure it produces competent barristers, and ultimately a legal system in which a diverse public can have confidence.”

Issue: 7703 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

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