header-logo header-logo

26 January 2018 / Melissa Hardee
Issue: 7778 / Categories: Features , Training & education , Profession
printer mail-detail

Shattering the training myth

nlj_7778_hardee

Melissa Hardee explains why training shouldn’t just be for trainers & trainees

A commonly held myth in law firms is that selecting, arranging and delivering training is the exclusive province of those in learning and development (L&D) or human resources (HR), and that it is not something that management or the fee earning population need to worry about.

The reality is somewhat different. Training involves a range of people in a firm: supervising someone’s work and giving feedback is ‘training’; fee earners who give a talk on a new legal development are delivering training. Practice areas may decide the legal technical training that should be undertaken in their group, in addition to deciding how to keep their lawyers up-to-date with legal developments.

The problem is that lawyers, although highly skilled and knowledgeable about the law, are rarely skilled and knowledgeable about training—although they may assume they are. With this in mind I set out to write The Legal Training Handbook and, later, its companion publication The Legal Training Toolkit (both available from the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll