header-logo header-logo

Future Bar training

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

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll