Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
In-house counsels don’t have active PCs bro, relax lol.
Isn’t one of the reason for all qualified person who has passed Part B to become NP lawyers to push for more career options to cater for those that don’t wanna become practising lawyers?
Administratively, it makes more sense to have all of the qualified persons (mind you, this just means passing law school for local grads) who has passed Part B to just get called to the bar as NP lawyers? As opposed to having these fresh grads decide which path to take straight out of law school (most of which don’t have real working experience).
|
Inhouse counsel analogy not entirely on point. These guys had practised before (even if just as a trainee), and do have the right to practice anytime again on fairly short notice with reactivation of PC (a mere administrative step)
A lawyer (NP) never had the right to practice and cannot (re)acquire the right to practice on short notice without doing substantive steps (the completion of a practice training requirement).
A meaningful difference between a "law graduate" and "lawyer" surely can't hinge on the completion of a few Part B subjects.
The better solution imo to diversify career options for law grads should be to allow law grads to satisfy the practice training requirement via inhouse seats. This is what they do in the UK. Not confer empty titles like NPL which the hiring market can see through in a second.