The Law Society is facing a judicial review for lending its name to a single training provider.
On 9th October the Law Society announced that it was entering into a joint venture with a training provider, BARBRI, to provide courses for the Qualifying Lawyer Transfer Scheme (QLTS). Under the arrangement, BARBRI will train foreign-qualified lawyers who want to practise in England and Wales and the Law Society, in return for lending its reputation, will receive a cut of the fees. BARBRI, which plies its trade predominantly in the US offering preparation courses to help US law students pass the bar, is owned by Leeds Equity Partners, a $1.2 billion private equity firm whose 18 staff are based in an office next door to Trump Tower in New York.
The Law Society was highly excited about this arrangement. Other providers, notably BPP and The University of Law, were rather less so. They can still offer QLTS courses, but only their competitor will bear the imprimatur of the Law Society. For foreign lawyers browsing providers, the endorsement makes BARBRI an attractive option. And given that the Law Society is meant to be the independent voice of the profession (which ultimately pays for the SRA), the words 'conflict', 'inappropriate' and 'anti-competitive' come to mind.
And now, 'High Court'. QLTS School, a London-based company whose sole business is, as its name suggests, the provision of QLTS training, has filed a claim seeking a judicial review of the arrangement between the Law Society and BARBRI. It claims that the Law Society conducted an improper bid, and accuses it of interfering in the regulatory powers of the SRA. Sources told RollOnFriday that the Legal Services Board is also investigating the matter.
A Law Society spokesman confirmed the reports to RollOnFriday, stating "we have received a pre-action protocol letter and we are currently considering its contents. We will not be commenting further at this time".
The grant of a judicial review would raise more questions about the leadership of the Law Society after it was found guilty in June of abusing its dominant position in the legal training market. The Competition Appeals Tribunal called its case "deeply unimpressive" and "wholly unsatisfactory". But maybe it's had some training since then.
Tip Off ROF
On 9th October the Law Society announced that it was entering into a joint venture with a training provider, BARBRI, to provide courses for the Qualifying Lawyer Transfer Scheme (QLTS). Under the arrangement, BARBRI will train foreign-qualified lawyers who want to practise in England and Wales and the Law Society, in return for lending its reputation, will receive a cut of the fees. BARBRI, which plies its trade predominantly in the US offering preparation courses to help US law students pass the bar, is owned by Leeds Equity Partners, a $1.2 billion private equity firm whose 18 staff are based in an office next door to Trump Tower in New York.
The Law Society was highly excited about this arrangement. Other providers, notably BPP and The University of Law, were rather less so. They can still offer QLTS courses, but only their competitor will bear the imprimatur of the Law Society. For foreign lawyers browsing providers, the endorsement makes BARBRI an attractive option. And given that the Law Society is meant to be the independent voice of the profession (which ultimately pays for the SRA), the words 'conflict', 'inappropriate' and 'anti-competitive' come to mind.
 |
With Law Soc backing it was no longer just another provider. It had become BARBRI. |
And now, 'High Court'. QLTS School, a London-based company whose sole business is, as its name suggests, the provision of QLTS training, has filed a claim seeking a judicial review of the arrangement between the Law Society and BARBRI. It claims that the Law Society conducted an improper bid, and accuses it of interfering in the regulatory powers of the SRA. Sources told RollOnFriday that the Legal Services Board is also investigating the matter.
A Law Society spokesman confirmed the reports to RollOnFriday, stating "we have received a pre-action protocol letter and we are currently considering its contents. We will not be commenting further at this time".
The grant of a judicial review would raise more questions about the leadership of the Law Society after it was found guilty in June of abusing its dominant position in the legal training market. The Competition Appeals Tribunal called its case "deeply unimpressive" and "wholly unsatisfactory". But maybe it's had some training since then.
Comments
376
387
381
368
I can see we need the SRA, but can't we just flog off the building in Chancery Lane and the President's chain of office, and the wine collection or whatever else they have, and be rid of this drain on the profession?
371
372
397
353
MS SMITH: I can only apologise for that, but I think that the main source of the problem was the very diffuse way in which this product is managed across the organisation.
[Transcript from Day Four: Socrates Training Limited v The Law Society of England and Wales}
The Law Society lost that case and, had it not been called upon to provide explanations of its evidence, the Tribunal would have been misled. (THE PRESIDENT: ... if you had not given us that explanation, we would have been misled).
It seems as if the Law Society has not understood the lessons from losing the case and being found to have abused its dominant position.
The question we need to ask is whether the Law Society intended to make any profits from its association with BARBRI.
The next question must surely be, what exactly is the purpose of the Law Society?