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?

It would further reduce diversity which is already a problem in law. It’s important to have lawyers with different perspectives, specialisms, expertise, experiences, and backgrounds. Surely there’s a huge market for lawyers who can speak another language, or who have expertise in science, forensics, psychology, art, property and planning, finance and accounting, education, etc.? Based on the lawyers I know (not many to be fair) a few of them would have benefitted from a few years of broader learning.

@gengha you say all lawyers now have to pass SQE. Do barristers not count as lawyers anymore?!

I know quite a lot of lawyers (barristers). Many did a different degree and converted to law- and their first degree is used in the area of law they now work in.

surely we want law to be competitive so only the best get through?

I don’t do corporate law now. I now provide a legal service where I need to understand divorce / child law / property law / company law and mental capacity. So grateful for my broad grounding in law daily. I don’t advise on these areas but understand them and can recognise issues so can signpost clients to specialists.

It would just make law degrees more competitive. Or, universities would offer more law degrees to fulfill the demand, and there would still be lots of competition.

@wanderingwillowsthis isn't true. It used to be the case, but now the requirements to be a Solicitor in England and Wales are to have a degree in any subject (not necessarily law) sit the SQEs, and have 2 years qualifying work experience (I.e. working in a law firm).

There is an argument to be made as to how likely it would be for you to pass the SQE without some kind of conversion course, but it’s certainly not a requirement

Not saying I agree with op just rebutting the “law degrees are pointless” comment mine certainly has been of great value to me.

I qualified back in ye oldene dayes (after a law degree as it happens). The filter for numbers came in the form of only a handful of Colleges of Law and a couple of Polys offering the Law Society Finals (as it was then). In my view enabling any institution to offer this final stage of education was what has caused the problems of too many people chasing too few jobs. Most people who did LSF went into practice.

You don’t even need a postgraduate conversion now to be a solicitor just pass SQE, although most still do as realistically you need law degree or conversion to pass SQE1 which tests functional legal knowledge. They break down SQE stats by age, ethnicity, degree classification etc but not by if have law degree or not.
The new way you qualify with 2 years qualifying work experience not a training contract lends itself to studying a law degree as those with a law degree are likely to pick up paralegal jobs as new graduates in a very overcrowded market.
I know for the bar and city firms lots have a different undergraduate degree. Specialist expertise can be helpful. It’s party a reflection a demographics of the people who go into those roles, they can afford (or their family can) the extra year for a conversion.
As a solicitor of over 25 years PQE working in small northern firms the vast majority of solicitors I know have a law degree.
There’s so many studying law degrees that the competition would still be fierce.

I'm sure they aren't pointless. It's just that they straddle general-interest legal learning with the bare beginnings of a professional route, (so that the conversion year can easily replace the vocational element). I half-wish I had studied law alongside my philosophy degree because of the lovely intersections between the two, and similar preoccupations with clarity and distinctions.

I have a law degree and personally loved it. I never understood comments about it being boring etc. If you are going to be having a legal career then surely you enjoy learning law. If you just do a conversion you miss all the interesting modules I personally loved law & medicine. My dd is a current law undergraduate student and we toured many open days they have some fantastic options now I could have happily signed up for. I pivoted to a totally different area of law a few years ago and the basics of what you studied in yr1 land law are still there 30 years later.

Barristers still need a law degree or conversion but solicitors don’t they just need any degree and pass SQE, it all changed a few years ago.

Ha MoreHolidays you are basically me! Totally the same. Also there are dual honours degrees with law which is what my dd is doing so keeping up
her language.

I'm a solicitor (England, 23 years qualified) and I admit that I didn't know in the US you have to have a law degree to be a lawyer. I did an English degree so under your proposal I wouldn't be allowed.

It is true that a legal career is much more competitive now. I think it's one training contract for every ten applicants. When I was applying it was one for every two, so half the applicants wouldn't secure one and that was terrifying enough. However, several of the places where I was interviewed said that they shortlisted me because my CV looked a bit different and they liked that I'd done something different. (My first career was in publishing.) I do think I had the chance to develop skills, particularly drafting and managing a project/budget, that I may not have done to the same extent had I come straight from doing a law degree.

It may reduce competition, that is true, but that doesn't mean the industry will get better lawyers.

Yes my dd is law and politics so it is a qualifying law degree but allows her to study another subject too.
I do think for bar etc a none law degree can be useful. I had a conference with a young barrister yesterday in an extremely niche area and she has a first from Oxbridge in a very relevant subject.

@FemusiaMy DD did the GDL. You are not qualified to work as a solicitor or barrister after the GDL. Another year plus certified practice is needed (well for barristers).

Her first degree is MFL. So in your world, she would jettison this 4 year degree, do another degree for 3 years and then a professional training course (BPTC for her) and then a year of qualifying pupillage. So a choice at 17 would mean a minimum of 9 years training? Obviously 8 for some. Thats ludicrous and very expensive.

Why would you think all the best people study law? They clearly don’t. Also why should competition be less? There’s very good reasons why law firms often like a mix of backgrounds, experiences and thought processes which certainly can provide a different viewpoint and avoids “group think”. There’s no evidence the GDL route doesn’t provide great lawyers either.

The young people I know who are lawyers and barristers that didn’t study law have studied academic subjects like history, music at Oxford, classics at Cambridge and MFLs at elite universities. All are very bright and one of DDs friends has a starred first in classics from Cambridge. People like this should have the opportunity to become lawyers and they are just as good as anyone else. They don’t need a masters in law but I think the GDL is now available as this so students get masters funding. In family law, which is barely touched on in a law degree or GDL, it’s useful to have social workers converting for example. Why would their experience not be valuable?

If law grads want a closed shop, they don’t understand the breadth of law as a job. It needs a variety of practitioners and I cannot see any good reason to restrict intake of those who are genuinely interested post another degree. Their education is broader and quite a few barristers come from other areas of work and bring great knowledge with them. That’s obviously important and they should not need 4 years (3 year degree and BPTC) to become a barrister and have the expense of that. The public is better served by people having a variety of degrees, experience and backgrounds.

but that’s the point. I’m not saying that this should happen by the way, it’s just a hypothetical.

But, it is well known that many people try to game the system by studying subjects like music or theology which are relatively much easier to get into at Oxbridge and less difficult than Law so they get into Oxbridge and get the prestige of an Oxbridge degree then convert into law and waltz into the highest paid firms because of the Oxbridge degrees. Meanwhile those who couldn’t get into Oxbridge for law itself or had to go elsewhere because law is much more competitive and you have to specific admissions tests and interviews for law, then are disadvantaged because they lack the university prestige. It’s well-known certain firms will give preference to a Cambridge History grad over a Bristol Law grad even though the former didn’t have to do the LNAT and it was relatively easier for them to get in than it would’ve been for the Bristol law grad to get into Cambridge law etc.

It’s well-known that people either do this deliberately ie they deliberately choose such a relatively easier degree so long as it’s Oxbridge then go into law. Obviously, if they genuinely enjoyed that degree then it’s different; but still they would be getting the prestige of elite universities which you referenced by virtue of having studied a less competitive course.

Many private schools are notoriously for churning out people who go off to study Latin or Classics at Oxbridge with every intention to progress into law. And, most ordinary schools don’t even teach those subjects so that advantages them and then, again, they get the benefit of the Oxbridge prestige even when that prestige wasn’t from a law degree.

In my firm we have some really amazing trainees coming through who didn’t study law. Lots of languages and English.

I’m not aware of this being ‘well known’ but I finished my degree over 20 years ago. Is this impacting your child?

Yes that does still happen. A classmate of my DD’s (state grammar fwiw) is studying Norse & Anglo Saxon at Oxbridge as it had a much higher acceptance rate than law. His A levels weren’t stellar.
The skills developed at Oxbridge through the tutorial system then enable them to do well in the competitive assessments.
But outside of the very narrow bubble of pupillage and city training contracts a none law degree applicant is going to find it harder to get a foot in the door. Now it’s 2 years qualifying work experience not tc to qualify lots of firms advertise for paralegals and if decent they go through SQE.

@FemusiaAnd so what? This probably opens up a law degree for others! GDL students bring expertise and a different set of skills. They can also be a lot more interesting to talk to. I’m assuming you don’t value music or MFLs in the world? There’s room for high achieving young people in law and of course a tiny minority from non law courses convert. They are equally dedicated and have had time to research and consider the career. DD would also would feel part of her life was missing if she had not done MFLs and her friends think the same. Dd 100% wanted her MFLs first. They are part of her personality and life skills. Going abroad for a year definitely builds resilience and understanding of others. Yes, they don’t need LNAT but your DC won’t need to bother with learning MFLs for years or playing a musical instrument or two to a high level. All learning has value and at 17, dc should choose their degrees according to their skills and great interests at that point. Theres time to convert later and they should continue to do that. Too bad if your Dc doesn’t like the competition.

I also don’t think there’s evidence of Oxbridge grads getting picked over LNAT grads. Unless they happen to do selection tests better of course, and they quite possibly do!

With that level of ruthlessness and cunning they will probably make good lawyers! God at 18 I was blundering around following my nose

My bad! I meant solicitors, of course 😄

The “well known” is 100% just your perspective.

And of all careers, AI will I think, kill it almost stone dead. The grind work that juniors used to do is done in seconds. I’m an unqualified advocate and the tribunal applications that I used to have to spend weeks on, are done in minutes.

My DH who was managing partner of a major law firm always liked candidates who did something other than law as he felt they were more rounded. He did law himself (Oxford) but was equally passionate about History.

Our firm still has training contracts. Lots do. The SRA asked a while back for feedback on the idea of getting rid of training contracts and the feedback in the main was that they were important and should remain. Obviously the SRA ignored the industry as they always do.