Continuing, professional, developmental...Jane Ching debates the true meaning of CPD
It has been difficult to miss discussion in the legal press about the new flexibility entering the legal practice course (LPC) market. Easier, perhaps, unless involved in it, to overlook the piloting of the proposed replacement for the training contract—a period of work-based learning extended beyond the parameters of the conventional law firm or its in-house, local or central government equivalent. As with the new LPC, outcomes to be achieved are set and those outcomes, in terms of the competences expected of an individual at the point of qualification, are to be assessed.
Solicitors sit in an odd state of limbo: once qualified there is no obligation to obtain any further or higher qualifications. Recognition of competence and expertise is internal, within the employing organisation, or by reputation rather than qualification given the absence of objective or externally assessable criteria promulgated by the profession.
A similar limbo surrounds the solicitors' continuing professional development (CPD) system. At present, its focus in fact, if not in intention, is on input rather than output.
