Legal Village

Transfer test at best a qualified success

Posted 22/01/2007 by Nigel Savage

Over 20% of admitted solicitors each year qualify by taking the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test (QLTT). Some are English barristers and Scottish solicitors just seeking to requalify as English solicitors, but a large percentage of those taking the test are foreign-qualified lawyers.

The number of exams they take depends on whether they come from a common law or civil jurisdiction and or whether they are members of the European Union. In many respects the QLTT has been a huge success in facilitating the recruitment of many young overseas lawyers into the ranks of the English global law firms, particularly from Commonwealth jurisdictions.

In recent years, firms have been less enthusiastic about the QLTT, working on the basis that if you are a good transactional lawyer it really makes no difference where you qualified. However, numbers taking the test have continued to burgeon, attracting more private sector providers to apply to the Law Society to run the examination.

By contemporary standards of teaching and learning, the QLTT is more like the old LSF in style – the Law Society validate providers, but are not nearly as prescriptive in regulating providers as the LPC. Indeed, there is strong case for being more hands-on with the QLTT since passing it leads to automatic admission as a solicitor - as opposed to the LPC, which usually requires all the paraphernalia of the training contract and so on.

We had a worrying experience recently in respect of an overseas lawyer who had to take just one head of the QLTT. The particular candidate failed the examination on five separate occasions, achieving an average mark of 34%. The candidate sat the examination for the sixth time late last year. Three days after taking the examination the candidate informed us that they had passed the head with one of the private sector providers.

 Whilst we were not obliged to mark the paper, we nevertheless decided to honour our initial commitment to the candidate. The outcome was that the candidate more or less achieved the same standard as before - 32%. In one paper covering a reserved activity, a mark of 6% was attained.

There may, of course, be an acceptable explanation for the above. However, given the context that candidates sit a test and any preparation or teaching beforehand is an optional extra, it is difficult to readily identify an acceptable explanation for a candidate passing with one provider having six times failed convincingly with another. The candidate may have been lucky, perhaps, or the examination may have suited their style or ability.

I am well aware of my own reputation for embracing the values of the market place. I have, however, never compromised at any point in my career on educational or academic standard. I worry about the implications of the above on professional standards and conduct. At the very least the Regulations Board needs to appoint a Chief External Examiner to monitor standards and impose more rigorous requirements on providers. As an institution with degree-awarding powers, we cannot compromise at any point on academic standards.

I should stress that this is not intended as a rant against the Law Society. In recent years I have been a significant critic of the society and some of the ideas emerging from Chancery Lane/Redditch. However, I actually have not felt as confident about the leadership and top-level management of the Law Society for over 10 years.