In a recent report, a majority of an LSUC committee recommended that Convocation terminate the Law Practice Program next spring.
The majority felt that the LPP created a “two-tier system” as some would “perceive” LPP candidates as “second-tier.” The majority also thought the LPP to be expensive: It is subsidized by the LSUC’s members and by students in the regular articling program.
In my view, the proposed termination of the program at this point is inappropriate and I hope it is voted down at Convocation. I was pleased to hear the news this week that the LSUC’s Professional Development and Competence Committee has changed its recommendation about stopping the LPP next spring. I am one of the many supporters of the program, and expressed my view to the committee as to why, at a minimum, the LPP should be extended for two more years, as originally proposed.
Although the views expressed here are my own, in the interests of full disclosure, I am a partner at McCarthy Tétrault LLP, where we hired a wonderful LPP candidate along with our articling program candidates. I have spent half my working life as an in-house lawyer and would happily have engaged an LPP candidate without ever thinking that she was second-tier. I am a Distinguished Visiting Scholar at Ryerson University, which offers one of the LPP programs. My mother was a mature student who became an Ontario lawyer in her 40s — she articled in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. And my daughter is a second-year law student in Ontario who hopes to become licensed here.
The additional years of the LPP pilot would allow for more data gathering and, critically, the creation of a replacement — if ultimately termination is indeed the LPP’s fate. This is superior to guessing that nothing would change if the LPP continues for two more years. The extra time could allow for the exploration of ideas that the majority suggested could serve to replace the LPP, rather than terminating the LPP and hoping. The rationale for the LPP was that the articling program through traditional law programs was unable to meet the ever-increasing demand for article placements. That fact remains true.
The LPP and the Articling Program were never intended to be identical. While articling would continue to be the route through which most candidates would be licensed, the LPP, which would include both a skills training program and a co-operative work placement, would provide an alternative path to licensing. It has already done this for hundreds of candidates who completed the LPP and were called to the bar.
Nevertheless, the majority focused on the “perception” that the LPP is a “second-tier” system while concurrently finding that the LPP was not, in fact, second-tier or merited that perception. Rather, a report by the committee noted that the LPP was “of very high quality and may, in fact, excel over articling in a number of areas.”
The majority also highlighted the unsurprising finding that: “Many respondents declared they could not find an articling placement, so enrolled in the LPP as a result.” Indeed, the LPP absorbed hundreds of would-be lawyers who were unable to find other articling positions, exactly as it was planned to do. Not surprisingly, many LPP candidates had applied elsewhere and been unable to secure articling positions.
The fact that, even though there is no supporting evidence, some people still perceive the LPP to be second-tier ought not to be either surprising or determinative.
The 2012 Articling Task Force, which first recommended the LPP, noted that racialized, internationally educated and older candidates were under-represented among those who were able to find traditional articling placements. The LPP has an over-weighting of candidates in those categories. However, the cancellation of the LPP will result in the status quo ante. The majority acknowledged that problem but recommended that “the Law Society explore the development of a fund to be used to support these priorities.” It is hard to follow the logic. Although the LPP did not solve 100% of the problem, why not continue the LPP and explore the development of the fund over the next two years to see if it is actually a panacea? The LPP was designed to accommodate about 400 candidates and instead it is producing about 230 licensing candidates annually. The LPP’s cost is borne by lawyer licensees and by an additional $1,900 paid by every candidate in both the Articling Program and the LPP.
The 2012 Articling Task Force projected that the costs of the LPP spread across the candidates in both programs would be an additional $1,320 per candidate. Instead, since the LPP attracted approximately 230 candidates per annum as opposed to the projected 400, the equalized assessment costs rose by $580 per candidate. The decision to terminate the LPP should not revolve around that $580 difference. Or if it does, the LSUC should say so and not confuse it with “perceptions.” Most importantly, it should provide a new solution to the articling crisis before cancelling the LPP.
The majority thinks that law firms (including McCarthy Tétrault LLP), corporations and other entities that saw fit to hire an LPP candidate for 16 weeks from January to April might be willing to hire more articling students for the entire articling year. It is uncertain that attempts to scale up 16-week LPP placements (especially unpaid ones) into full articling years would be successful. The focus of the LSUC’s licensing process is to make sure that its member lawyers are competent. There is no suggestion that the LPP candidates are less competent than those coming from the Articling Program, despite the apparent “perception” that the LPP is “second-tier.” Indeed, the majority emphasized that successfully licensed LPP candidates are equally qualified to their colleagues who articled. I would extend the LPP for at least two years and use the data to make a better-informed choice instead of guessing that nothing in the LPP will change and that we can replace it by “exploring” and “building on the LPP’s successes.”
Grant Buchanan is a partner at McCarthy Tétrault LLP.
The majority felt that the LPP created a “two-tier system” as some would “perceive” LPP candidates as “second-tier.” The majority also thought the LPP to be expensive: It is subsidized by the LSUC’s members and by students in the regular articling program.
In my view, the proposed termination of the program at this point is inappropriate and I hope it is voted down at Convocation. I was pleased to hear the news this week that the LSUC’s Professional Development and Competence Committee has changed its recommendation about stopping the LPP next spring. I am one of the many supporters of the program, and expressed my view to the committee as to why, at a minimum, the LPP should be extended for two more years, as originally proposed.
Although the views expressed here are my own, in the interests of full disclosure, I am a partner at McCarthy Tétrault LLP, where we hired a wonderful LPP candidate along with our articling program candidates. I have spent half my working life as an in-house lawyer and would happily have engaged an LPP candidate without ever thinking that she was second-tier. I am a Distinguished Visiting Scholar at Ryerson University, which offers one of the LPP programs. My mother was a mature student who became an Ontario lawyer in her 40s — she articled in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. And my daughter is a second-year law student in Ontario who hopes to become licensed here.
The additional years of the LPP pilot would allow for more data gathering and, critically, the creation of a replacement — if ultimately termination is indeed the LPP’s fate. This is superior to guessing that nothing would change if the LPP continues for two more years. The extra time could allow for the exploration of ideas that the majority suggested could serve to replace the LPP, rather than terminating the LPP and hoping. The rationale for the LPP was that the articling program through traditional law programs was unable to meet the ever-increasing demand for article placements. That fact remains true.
The LPP and the Articling Program were never intended to be identical. While articling would continue to be the route through which most candidates would be licensed, the LPP, which would include both a skills training program and a co-operative work placement, would provide an alternative path to licensing. It has already done this for hundreds of candidates who completed the LPP and were called to the bar.
Nevertheless, the majority focused on the “perception” that the LPP is a “second-tier” system while concurrently finding that the LPP was not, in fact, second-tier or merited that perception. Rather, a report by the committee noted that the LPP was “of very high quality and may, in fact, excel over articling in a number of areas.”
The majority also highlighted the unsurprising finding that: “Many respondents declared they could not find an articling placement, so enrolled in the LPP as a result.” Indeed, the LPP absorbed hundreds of would-be lawyers who were unable to find other articling positions, exactly as it was planned to do. Not surprisingly, many LPP candidates had applied elsewhere and been unable to secure articling positions.
The fact that, even though there is no supporting evidence, some people still perceive the LPP to be second-tier ought not to be either surprising or determinative.
The 2012 Articling Task Force, which first recommended the LPP, noted that racialized, internationally educated and older candidates were under-represented among those who were able to find traditional articling placements. The LPP has an over-weighting of candidates in those categories. However, the cancellation of the LPP will result in the status quo ante. The majority acknowledged that problem but recommended that “the Law Society explore the development of a fund to be used to support these priorities.” It is hard to follow the logic. Although the LPP did not solve 100% of the problem, why not continue the LPP and explore the development of the fund over the next two years to see if it is actually a panacea? The LPP was designed to accommodate about 400 candidates and instead it is producing about 230 licensing candidates annually. The LPP’s cost is borne by lawyer licensees and by an additional $1,900 paid by every candidate in both the Articling Program and the LPP.
The 2012 Articling Task Force projected that the costs of the LPP spread across the candidates in both programs would be an additional $1,320 per candidate. Instead, since the LPP attracted approximately 230 candidates per annum as opposed to the projected 400, the equalized assessment costs rose by $580 per candidate. The decision to terminate the LPP should not revolve around that $580 difference. Or if it does, the LSUC should say so and not confuse it with “perceptions.” Most importantly, it should provide a new solution to the articling crisis before cancelling the LPP.
The majority thinks that law firms (including McCarthy Tétrault LLP), corporations and other entities that saw fit to hire an LPP candidate for 16 weeks from January to April might be willing to hire more articling students for the entire articling year. It is uncertain that attempts to scale up 16-week LPP placements (especially unpaid ones) into full articling years would be successful. The focus of the LSUC’s licensing process is to make sure that its member lawyers are competent. There is no suggestion that the LPP candidates are less competent than those coming from the Articling Program, despite the apparent “perception” that the LPP is “second-tier.” Indeed, the majority emphasized that successfully licensed LPP candidates are equally qualified to their colleagues who articled. I would extend the LPP for at least two years and use the data to make a better-informed choice instead of guessing that nothing in the LPP will change and that we can replace it by “exploring” and “building on the LPP’s successes.”
Grant Buchanan is a partner at McCarthy Tétrault LLP.
