Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jonty" data-source="post: 827" data-attributes="member: 41">Question away - there will be tons I can remember from yesterday that I wasn't consciously able to write up, so might as well ask whatever you can think of and I'll be happy to answer!Yeah - I like that these things are being said this early on too, hopefully it'll instill the right focuses in law firms with regards to how technology can help them. I think the worst outcome would be if we introduced all this tech and lawyers were still consistently working 60/70/80 hour weeks.So with regards to letting the fires burn - Julia effectively said that as a lawyer moving into the world of running her own business, she was constantly fire-fighting across the business. She was putting all her time and effort into simply keeping the business running, without really pushing it forwards, but once she accepted that sometimes there are problems you can't deal with right now, you'll be having an easier time of it. She's not advocating that you ignore every single problem but rather than lawyers have a harder time learning to not try to solve every single issue at once, rather let the "fire" burn in that area of the business. She was paraphrasing <a href="http://www.reidhoffman.org/why-the-best-entrepreneurs-let-fires-burn/" target="_blank">this </a>podcast/article from Reid Hoffmann (who founded LinkedIn and helped found PayPal).With regards to time mgmt/self-mgmt skills - I think it's more about getting involved in various activities that allow you to display your experiences in this area. Leadership such as running societies, project management on pro bono projects etc all make practical use of these skills. Obviously it's not just positions of responsibility that display this, just a few examples that sprung to mind. But law firms are choosing this as an area that students are generally weak on, so anything that anyone can do to push themselves ahead will likely set them in good stead.There were tons of issues with it that I got from both the sessions and talking to people outside of the sessions to get their feelings on it. Concerns over upholding the quality of solicitors, worries over the future of the law degree, question marks over how much of a difference it'll actually make. But, again, it felt like these criticisms and issues (whilst valid) were coming from a place of worry over the speaker's future role, not the SQE itself. Personally I'd be happier with a complete re-design of it all and have three methods of entry into law firms:1) The law degree route This will feature a re-designed law degree that cuts out areas that aren't necessary from the existing LL.B by shrinking some of the modules down to allow for more modules to be completed each year. My reasoning for this is simple; I don't, personally, remember all that much from my first year of law and I doubt trainees starting/finishing their TC make use of the majority of the stuff they learnt. Maybe certain areas (e.g. contract law) should stay as a big module but beyond that a revamp could take place. The final year will be a variant on the LPC that brings through professional training such as drafting skills. After completing this, students are able to go straight into a qualifying legal experience (which requires minimum 6 months in an actual law firm) and, after a minimum of two years, take the SQE 2 exam. Once they've passed this, they're qualified.2) The non-law degree routeThis will feature a similar qualification to the GDL being created for non-law graduates to take. It'll be the SQE 1 and somehow do enough to get SQE 1 students onto a similar performing level to the LL.B students as above. After completing the SQE 1, they're able to go onto the final part mentioned above.3) The non-degree routeI also have no issue with people completing an apprenticeship rather than taking an educational route. It'll involve a similar length and style process as the other two, except obviously also feature paid work in the process. Perhaps the length of time it'd take to complete the theory on top of the paid day-to-day work means the two year QLE would be possible to be shortened (given they'll be working day-to-day in a law firm anyway)I think my version would allow for more flexibility for law firms be happy by letting them continue choosing their preferred candidates but also do away with the need for costs of the LPC by, basically, incorporating a variant into the LL.B. The continuance and re-confirmation of the value of the LL.B would also see the unis kept happy.</blockquote>

Verification: Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?

Top Bottom

Search

Search

Reply to thread