SRA Work Based Learning Framework: the 5 Key Changes
1) Evidence
The SRA requires trainees to demonstrate competence against each WBL outcome with reference to documentary evidence. In other words, the Training Principal will no longer be able to sign off a trainee as ready to be admitted onto the Roll on the basis that they have got through their training contract having 'kept their nose clean'. With WBL, the trainee, their supervisors and training partner must manage their training contract so that they get the kind of work that covers the WBL Outcomes, whilst putting together a portfolio of documentary evidence. Evidence can come in a variety of forms. For example, the drafting outcome could be evidenced by producing a precedent contract, followed by an amended draft, then the final draft. In addition, evidence can be provided by supervisors, for example in the form of performance/appraisal documents or a confirmatory notes backing up what the trainee is claiming in relation to a particular piece of work.
2) Actual experience
Training or observation of others is not enough for most outcomes - direct, hands-on personal experience is required. This initially caused concern amongst commercial firms on the skills outcome for advocacy but the SRA has taken these concerns on board and has relaxed the requirements considerably.
Another area is direct client contact - firms that shield trainees from giving front-line advice to clients whether on the phone, in meetings or by email will have to rethink their training strategy. For example, they may have to send trainees to pro bono law centres in order to gain that first-hand experience.
3) Assessment
The current approach of Training Principals 'signing off' trainees as ready to enter the Roll is replaced by an Assessment. This can be done by an External Assessment Organisation (such as Nottingham Law School or Oxford Institute) or the firm can seek validation as an Internal Assessment Organisation and do the assessment internally via a nominated Assessor (typically the training partner - but not necessarily so).
The WBL Assessment Benchmark:
Based on the evidence provided in their WBL portfolio, the Assessor has to be confident that the trainee at qualification is consistently "competent" against all 37 WBL outcomes and that this competence can be expected as the norm going forward.
(As in the current system, it also has to be established that the trainee can draw on experience in at least 3 areas of law and in both contentious and non-contentious work.)
[This is a simplified version of the Assessment Criteria we have established in conjunction with Freeth Cartwright LLP - for a fuller explanation and discussion, please contact Paulo Karat.]
An obvious question arising is, "what does 'competent' mean?" - see our analysis in Work Based Learning: Assessment & "Competence".
Will trainees fail??
Of course, with the requirement of assessment comes the potential for failure and, in turn, an appeals procedure to some kind of appeals body or panel (whether this will be on a firm-by-firm basis or perhaps more logically via the SRA itself or some SRA-endorsed panel remains to be seen).
With the basic threshold set at competence, provided law firms have their recruitment and Work Based Learning systems in good order, there shouldn't be very many failures and even if potential problems arise with a particular candidate, these should be highlighted (and dealt with) well before the final assessment (indeed, one of the key benefits emerging out of the WBL system is the way in which it forces firms to look strategically at how each trainee is doing on a regular basis, enabling them to take pre-emptive measures as appropriate to make sure they cover particular types of work in particular seats).
But what if a trainee does fail??
If a candidate fails and does not succeed on appeal, we enter virgin territory. This is an interesting and completely new idea. In short, that candidate - be they a trainee or a paralegal - cannot be admitted onto the Roll of Solicitors. This would of course be a cataclysmic outcome for the candidate and in theory for the firm also if it wanted to offer that candidate an NQ position (but it is of course a moot point whether a firm would want to retain the services of an NQ who could not meet the WBL 'competence' threshold unless the failure resulted from the firm not providing the trainee with access to the kind of work needed to enable them cover the WBL Outcomes).
Conversely, the assessment regime leaves open the strong possibility, mirroring current practice, that a candidate may be objectively competent against the WBL outcomes and thus be fit to pass the WBL Assessment and be enrolled, whilst nonetheless coming away empty handed without an NQ job at the end of it.
4) Each and every outcome matters
Another change is that each and every outcome has to be covered and evidenced - there are no fuzzy edges. There is a level of precision and rigour within WBL that is simply not present with the current SRA Skills Standards framework. If a trainee lacks coverage on 1 outcome, that could block their path to qualification unless measures are taken to plug that gap.
5) Personnel
The WBL pilot sets out some distinct roles:
- Nominated Solicitor: this is the person within the employer organisation with formal responsibility to the SRA and the candidate for the overall supervision of the candidate in the work place. In most law firms, the Nominated Solicitor will be a partner, possibly but not necessarily the Training Partner. The candidate will of course have day to day supervisors of their work, but it is the Nominated Solicitor who carries the overall responsibility for managing the candidate's work based learning progress as they progress from department to department.
- Reviewer: this is the person who reviews how the candidate is progressing against the work based learning outcomes, including at least 4 review meetings over the course of the 2 year period. The Reviewer may be the same person as the Nominated Solicitor (unless the employer is using an external assessment organisation like OXILP or NLS, in which case the Reviewer will be from within the assessment organisation).
- Assessor: this is the person who will formally assess the candidate at the end of the 2 year period for competence against the Work Based Learning outcomes. Law firms can appoint the same person to undertake all 3 roles of Nominated Solicitor, Reviewer and Assessor. The preference within the external assessment organisations so far is to separate the Reviewer(s) from the Assessor.
To speak to us about any Work Based Learning query, or to subscribe to our WBL email updates and keep fully up to speed with developments, please contact us.