Reply to thread

My understanding of the original post was if a person is in the position of being able to do postgrad studies e.g., LLM’s in specialist areas of law, why haven’t they chose to do the LPC/SQE instead to qualify much sooner. By doing masters in specific areas of commercial law, it is possible that a candidate would be perceived to be less open to other practice areas (which may or may not be true). 🙂🙂

If someone can’t afford self-funding postgrad studies, it would make sense if they choose to not do a masters, LPC or SQE because of financial circumstances. For a partner to question this person’s commitment to a legal career would be unfair. I think there is now a stronger understanding of social mobility and how talent comes from all backgrounds. So I imagine partners would not expect people from socially mobile backgrounds to self fund postgrad courses without the security of a TC.

Getting a TC is also a lot more competitive now than it used to be. I remember at an open day a partner said that when they got their TC it involved a meeting with partners. Now there are WGTs and SJTs, VI’s, AC’s and all the other kinds of assessments. This makes it a lot harder to secure TC’s. I guess that’s why the SRA chose to introduce the SQE/QWE route, to increase the access into the legal profession.

I wouldn’t worry too much because people’s individual circumstances are different. 🙂🙂

I come from a socially mobile background myself as well. 🥲