News

Barrister training overhaul receives legal watchdog approval

By on
19

Two-part BPTC a step closer

The Bar Standards Board’s (BSB) plans to bring greater flexibility to barristers’ education and training, including the possibility of a new two-part Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC), moved a step closer to reality this week after they received the backing of the legal watchdog.

In a note published yeserday, the Legal Services Board (LSB) “broadly welcomed” the changes which it says will “enable a degree of liberalisation” of the current system.

The LSB’s seal of approval comes after the regulator presented a revised set of rules to govern the process by which aspiring barristers will train and qualify in England and Wales, including four approved training pathways.

Purchase tickets for The Legal Cheek Future of Legal Education and Training Conference 2019

One of the more eye-catching options is the BSB’s ‘four-step pathway’, which sees students complete a law degree (or Graduate Diploma in Law) and pupillage, but will have the option to tackle the BPTC in two stages. While details remain thin on the ground, Legal Cheek understands part one will be knowledge-based, such as civil and criminal procedure, while part two will address practical skills such as advocacy and conferencing.

Other training routes include the standard BPTC, an ‘apprenticeship pathway’ and an integrated law degree-BPTC which is already on offer at a number of law schools.

One organisation looking to take advantage of the new rules is the Inns of Court College of Advocacy (ICCA), a cross-Inns education and training group made up of judges, lawyers and lecturers. As revealed by Legal Cheek, the ICCA is looking to launch a more “affordable” version of the BPTC ahead of an anticipated launch date in 2020.

The 2019 Legal Cheek BPTC Most List

19 Comments

Anonymous

But will it be 19000 each?

(8)(0)

Anonymous

Will full fresh still be required?

(7)(0)

Anonymous

Full fresh?

(1)(0)

Full Fresh

Yes?

(2)(0)

Figgis & Poo LLP (Doncaster)

Want to work for us?

Free custard creams every Thursday tea-break!

(0)(0)

Anonymous

I don’t get the reference.

Figgis & Poo LLP (Doncaster)

There is no reference.

We are a small, traditional high street firm looking to recruit fresh men.

Anonymous

What about women??????

Reporting this firm to SRA!!!!

Figgis & Poo LLP (Doncaster)

Calm down, dear!

Anonymous

Failed barristers turned BPTC lecturers will be on the dole soon!

(11)(1)

Not fooling me

Basically – SQE, or rather BQE.

(1)(0)

Quality Control

BPTC should become less affordable rather than more affordable if standards are going to be improved.

I shan’t say maintained as standards have slipped in the name of diversity.

This is a heaven sent opportunity to weed out the weak. Lets grasp it

(4)(13)

Snowflake

Omg this is literally hitlerian hate speech right here in the comment section. Comments closed when, Legal Cheek?

(1)(11)

Anonymous

Stop making silly comments. Your time would be better spent whipping the servants or some other traditional work.

(5)(3)

Anonymous

Absolutely. There is massive oversupply of entrants and upping the price point can only help.

(5)(3)

Anonymous

Raising standards isn’t about cost, it’s about academic and aptitude filters.

Even so, if there are too many hopeless cases doing the BPTC, what do the strong candidates have to fear? There may be some effect on the pace and effectiveness of classes, but I doubt it’s that significant. Much of the learning is self-started anyway.

In the end the system can’t protect the starry-eyed and misguided from themselves.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

But “the starry-eyed and misguided” are the ones that complain about diversity and force mountains of inane administration on the Chambers because the reasons they are turned away could not possibly be they are not good enough. There is only one reason people want institution blind applications, and that is because they went somewhere crap.

(3)(2)

Anonymous

Does any provider currently offer an integrated GDL-BPTC?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

There are no cost savings to be had, so, no. And unlikely to change.

(1)(0)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories