Originally Posted by Unregistered

I don't think that this is a good method (equating bigger to better), since alot of lawyers in the bigger firms just ignore (or give the most menial **** to) trainees as they have too many. Some smaller firms give far better training than "Warm Body" teams in b4.

But I get your drift. Perhaps a better alternative would be subjecting law firms/lawyers to training audits or actual training requirements before they are allowed to take on trainees, instead of a blanket PQE requirement. PQE is a meaningless concept, a 3 PQE lawyer might be years ahead of a 10 PQE lawyer.

We should propose to overhaul the training system - before a lawyer can take trainees, they have to prove that:

1. They have (or the law firm can provide) sufficient experience in a variety of fields. This means providing a general description of the work they have undertaken, and the work they expect to undertake.
2. Their average caseload and/or case quantum must exceed x/year.
3. They DO NOT have a history of being reprimanded or censured by the Court or Law Soc.
4. They are willing to provide a monthly report on the work provided to the trainee.
5. They can prove that they have adequate resources to take on trainees after the TC (instead of consistently cycling through trainees as a source of cheap labour).