What if only Law Graduates could Practise Law?

[Femusia]

What would be the consequence if in the UK, non-law graduates were no longer able to convert to law and only those with a law degree (like in US) could practice law?

For one, this would reduce competition for law graduates. There are so many people who study subjects like History or English or even Music who then compete with law graduates for jobs.

Would there even be any negative consequences?

To practice law, you have to have a law degree even if another degree has been converted by the GDL. So you are wrong to say that a non-law graduate can practice law - they’ll have graduated law by completing the GDL

But in the US don’t people get an undergraduate degree in whatever subject first then do law?

I'm studying a Law masters after a degree in Economics. You have to take, and pass a general Law course before the masters begins if your undergraduate degree is in any subject other than Law.

Presumably the competition for law degrees would grow massively. It would also penalise those who decide later that they want to study law. I wonder if this would have a negative impact on diversity. If you go straight to uni at 18/19, you are making decisions quite young, so you are maybe likely to get more people choosing law at that age who have been encouraged by family etc. There may be other young people who wouldn't have considered law at 17, but by 20 have a wider view of the world and their options.

The only squeak of a rationale for the suggestion in the OP would be aiming to improve the quality of those practising law. But there is zero reason to imagine it would do that. An undergraduate law degree isn't, as far as I understand, a honed piece of vocational training. It is a humanities degree of the same type as other humanities degrees. The detailed work of actually preparing to practise comes later.

What you are actually suggesting is an artificial constraint to limit competition. You might achieve that just as well by imposing a minimum height requirement.

That's not how it works in the US - graduates of any other degree apply to law school.

Would there be any negative consequences? Less rounded lawyers, for a start.

But would it lessen competition? That’s the key question asked

Totally disagree MyThreeWords. I’ve had a very varied career in law working in different legal fields and basically use what I learned on my law degree pretty much every day. How people absorb in a year the depth of knowledge you obtain from a three year law degree I will never understand.

Also those that do another subject because law is “boring” but want to be lawyers? Makes zero sense to me.

Do you want to lessen competition for law training. Why?

You don’t need to study law at college to go to law school in the US. Elle Woods got into Harvard with a fashion major.

I do appreciate this wasn’t real life!

But then Elle Woods did the full law school like any other American unlike those in the UK who do one year of law in a GDL vs three

You can get a job in law firm as a paralegal and bypass the degree route all together, getting your sqe1 and sqe2 on the job. Total cost around £10k. Great way to diversify the profession. My advice would be to bypass the competitive grad route all together. I’m an HRD and we’ve sponsored almost 10 people so far within our organisation.

Why would you want this?

Sounds like OP either did a law degree or has children doing one and doesn’t want them to face too much competition for jobs.

I know lawyers who did languages first and lawyers who did science. Both of those are areas of knowledge we need some lawyers to have.
Particularly science.

Yes, I know a lawyer who did a maths degree first. Result someone capable of understanding complex tax law properly.

In Scotland lawyers pretty much all lawyers tend to have law degrees, although some might do it as a second degree. I’m not sure it’d be much different tbh? The kids who study history, English etc but are planning carers as lawyers would probably just study law instead 🤷‍♀️ plus some people doing law degrees don’t actually want to be lawyers

plus a law degree contains subjects or at least mine did which are not strictly relevant to a career in legal practice.

English lawyers qualifying now all need to pass the SQE which is really hard by all accounts, if they can pass that they deserve their jobs! It is what’s put me off dual qualification to be honest

I've taught on law courses in a number of different universities. Even law degrees offering similar subjects vary widely in their approach e.g. some will give a historic perspective on land ownership looking at the patriarchal system and how it developed to modern times. Others focus on what the law is now, looking at ownership, tenancies, business tenancies and so on. Some cover far more material than others. So law graduates might have quite differing knowledge at the end of the 3 years. Plus a law degree is only a snapshot of the law at the time you do your degree - law moves on. So I'm not sure that only allowing those with law degrees to practice law would in any way produce a better pool of lawyers at the end of the day.

Many branches of law benefit from having a good grounding in a different degree first eg my friend has a PhD in genetics and specialises in genetics law

My partner specialises in a particular area of law and is employed as an expert in that field. He has a First in Maths from Cambridge and a PhD relating to his specialism, and obviously has had to do UK and European law exams on the side to be fully qualified. I don't think a general law degree would have made him a better candidate.

So may lawyers (solicitors and definitely barristers) come into the profession with different degrees. I did a law degree but it’s not particularly helpful tbh. Learning on the job and I suppose a bit of the LPC was more important.

It’s subjective isn’t it? In that case no but in my case (being a woman with family responsibilities so ducked and dived legal career as corporate law had unfamily friendly hours) it’s been very useful. Maybe the super brains could absorb it all in a year don’t think I could!

I love all these posts about the need for non-legal knowledge (acquired in a non-law undergrad degree) in each of the specialist areas of legal practice. It really brings home the absurdity of preventing the one-year conversion route.

In areas like IP different backgrounds (from an education standpoint) are much more helpful than law when you’re learning about constitutional law and trusts.

In hindsight I wish I’d done a different degree. Didn’t really have a long time plan in mind at the time though.

A genuine question - what did you learn in your law degree that helps in a corporate law setting?