Return to Contents

Jersey & Guernsey Law Review – February 2008

JERSEY LEGAL EDUCATION REFORMS[1]

Jean-Marie Renouf

Introduction

1       John F Kennedy[2] once stated – “Let us think of education as the means of developing our greatest abilities, because in each of us there is a private hope and dream which, fulfilled, can be translated into benefit for everyone and greater strength for our nation”.  It is the hope and dream of many working in Jersey’s legal industry to qualify as a local lawyer, and it is the education and development of those people which benefits and strengthens the island as a whole, ensuring the efficient administration of justice, the equality of arms in litigious conflict, and the quality of service to clients around the world.

2       Education and training are crucial elements of any progressive society, and influence every aspect of our lives, including the laws which govern us.  The impact of differing educational approaches on the Jersey legal profession and the island’s laws themselves may be seen in the shift in jurisdictional influences which shape our system of law.  The recent Jersey Law Commission paper on the Jersey Law of Contract notes that “prior to the time that English influence became particularly marked in Jersey law, local lawyers trained in France.  Today, the majority of Jersey lawyers study law in England and obtain a professional qualification in that jurisdiction prior to training locally.  The influence of English law today is therefore explicable on the same basis as the influence of French law was referred to by the Commissioners of 1861”.

3       At a time when much concern is expressed by members of the profession that the increasing influence of English law and practice upon Jersey’s lawyers is eroding our identity and legal roots, the system of education we implement is surely of paramount importance and worthy of substantial debate.  This article seeks to evaluate the current system in operation in Jersey, including the most recent reforms thereto, and suggests further reforms by the amendment of the framework that dictates how Jersey lawyers are educated and qualify.  Although the primary focus of this article is Jersey, some reference is also made to Guernsey and the application of reforms which might benefit both islands.

The current Jersey system of legal education in outline

4       The Advocates and Solicitors (Jersey) Law 1997 (“the Law”) governs ‘the right to practise as an advocate or solicitor’[3] including setting out the requirements for admission as an advocate or solicitor.  In both cases one must be at least 21 years of age and a qualifying citizen or national[4].  In addition, for admission as an advocate, one must hold a British law degree or CPE,[5] pass the Jersey qualifying examination, and have been employed in a relevant office, which is to say a Jersey law firm, the Law Officers’ Department, or Judicial Greffe,[6] for at least two years.[7]  To qualify as a Jersey solicitor one must either hold a British law degree or CPE, pass the Jersey qualifying examination, and have been employed in a relevant office for at least three years, or, hold a non-law degree, pass the Jersey qualifying examination, and have been employed by a relevant office for at least five years.[8]  A Jersey solicitor may become an advocate after three years of practice.[9]  Notwithstanding the small differences in the routes for qualification as either an advocate or a solicitor, both routes require the passing of the same examination.[10]

5       Under the Law, a board of examiners is charged with the conduct of the examinations, and the setting and marking of papers.  The Deputy Bailiff is President of the Board, with the remainder comprising the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and such advocates and solicitors appointed for the purpose by the profession as a whole.  Examiners serve a term of six years.

6       The Advocates and Solicitors (Qualifying Examination) (Jersey) Rules 1997 (“the Rules”) set out the structure of the Jersey qualifying examination.  For those who have a British law degree or CPE, the qualifying examination consists of five compulsory three hour papers on various areas of Jersey law.[11]  There is one further paper to be taken from a choice of three.[12]  For those whose degree is non-law there is a preliminary examination on essential English law.  Under the Rules the Bailiff issues a syllabus including some guidance as to the preparation required, whilst a similar syllabus is made available to students in Guernsey.

7       Certain exemptions exist for those in Jersey with legal qualifications from the University of Caen, though in practice this is rarely the case. In contrast a three month period of study in Caen is still compulsory for all aspirant lawyers in Guernsey.

8       To pass the qualifying examination a candidate must pass all papers, although no longer necessarily at one sitting,[13] provided they do so within a two year period.  A system similar to that in Jersey before the recent modularisation reform still operates in Guernsey, whereby all papers must be passed at once.

Evaluation of the current system

9       Whilst the studying for and sitting of the Jersey law exams is a key part of so many local lawyers’ development, there appears little attention given to any evaluation of the process itself.  As such, the author has obtained and analysed the results of examinations taken between April, 2001 and October, 2005, and compiled statistics showing students’ performance in each paper, and overall success and failure rates.[14]  Perhaps surprisingly, this information is recorded only informally and is not kept for review purposes or made generally available to students who might wish to research the exams they are to sit.

Click for Exam Statistics

10     A questionnaire was distributed amongst Jersey lawyers who had qualified within the previous three years seeking their experiences and opinions of the examinations.  Specifically, the lawyers were questioned on which aspect of qualifying they found most difficult, including which exam paper; how the exams compared with other tertiary education exams they might have sat in the United Kingdom; how well prepared for practice they felt, including in respect of advocacy, as a result of the process; and, finally, what changes they would suggest to be made to the system.  54 lawyers were sent the questionnaire and 12 responded.  Those who responded agreed to parts of their responses being quoted, although anonymity was assured.  The responses confirmed some of my preconceptions, raised new issues, and in some cases were quite alarming.

11     However, the first step in evaluating the effectiveness of an examination process is to determine the criteria by which it must be judged; what does it seek to achieve, and does it succeed?  Helpfully the Guernsey Bar syllabus[15] makes the following statement -

“The purpose of the Guernsey Exams must be to ensure that candidates are fit for call, which includes knowledge of Guernsey’s constitution, courts, laws, legal systems and practices, in relevant respects, so that aspirants understand the local constitutional and administrative context in which they practise.”

12     In the absence of such clarification in Jersey, it may be fair to assume the general purpose to be the same; to filter out those not sufficiently knowledgeable or generally prepared to practise. Further, given the legal aid obligation that any qualified Jersey lawyer assumes upon qualification,[16] it might also be fair to assume that the areas that should be tested in any examination process should include those that most commonly would arise in a legal aid case.

13     The question whether the exams prepare one for practice raised differences of opinion amongst the respondents to the author’s questionnaire, and differing views of resultant preparedness in the understanding of substantive Jersey law, and for advocacy in the Jersey courts respectively.  Whilst some took the view that ‘from a knowledge point of view, the exams have prepared me for my work as a Jersey lawyer’ and ‘[the] exams prepared me thoroughly for my work as a Jersey lawyer’, others felt this was not the case. This was particularly in respect of advocacy, and the work of a corporate lawyer undertaking purely transactional work, both of which most felt were entirely neglected in the learning and examination process.

Defects of the pre-2007 System and recent reforms

If law school is so hard to get through... how come there are so many lawyers?[17]

14     It may be that the number of lawyers qualifying in Jersey is increasing, but that does not mean that the process is becoming easier.  On the contrary, the responses to the author’s questionnaire (received before the recent modularisation of the examinations system) and the statistics mark the Jersey examinations out as exceptionally difficult, with only 30% of candidates able to achieve passes in all six, a further 26% achieving a conditional pass, and the largest group, 44%, failing outright.[18]  These are certainly far higher failure rates than is the case with English equivalent courses.[19]

15     Whilst my respondents presented a group of intelligent and educated individuals with proven academic records, there was a consensus that the Jersey exams were far more taxing than any other exams taken, including English legal examinations.  The exams were described as having nothing to do with academic ability, but being instead a test of memory, language skills and determination.

16     Indeed, even more striking than the significant failure rates were the threads of resentment towards the process running through many candidates’ comments, and the reported effects that the ordeal of learning the totality of prescribed material had on the health of some.[20]  The experience was described as ‘miserable’, and ‘a physical and mental ordeal that I have not experienced in any other situation’ whilst the exams themselves were ‘inconsistent, capricious and amateur in comparison [with the English equivalent exams]’.  Experiences such as those recounted, reflected an unnecessarily arduous process which can only raise questions as to the purpose and legitimacy of the Jersey legal examination process.

17     The foremost of complaints was that the sitting of six exams covering such diverse areas[21] was excessive, and like ‘cramming a three year law degree into the space of three to six months’.  However unlikely this may be, the responses on the whole do paint a picture of an unprecedented challenge undertaken by many who would have already have sat and passed many exams with diverse institutions.  If the process is so taxing, the possibility of hyperbole is readily understandable, although the cold statistics do support this notion of ‘cramming’, showing that each individual paper is eventually passed by most candidates, with success rates ranging from 59% to 78%, but that relatively few are able to pass all at once.

18     It is important to note that not all respondents felt the process unduly difficult.  One considered that ‘the exams are tough but set a good hurdle’ and that ‘if they are made easier then ultimately the quality of practitioners might fall’.  It is certainly true that greater difficultly in the exam questions that are set should lead to a stronger (although smaller) body of people who will pass through.  However, this view must be balanced against the view of most respondents that it was the education and examination systems, themselves, that were flawed and posed the obstacle to achieving a pass.

19     My discussions with a Guernsey advocate confirmed that these experiences are shared, to some extent, by students there in that the Guernsey examinations are also considered far more difficult than the English equivalents, attracting rates of failure of (very approximately) 15%, which is lower than in Jersey but in most cases probably still higher than in the UK.

20     However, since the receipt of feedback and compilation of statistics discussed above, a modular system whereby one is obliged simply to pass all papers at some point within a two year period, and is free to decide when to do so, has been introduced.  It is hoped that this will alleviate the intense pressures recounted, and improve success rates, whilst also proving more flexible for both students and employers.

21     Such a revised system makes much sense; it may be assumed, one would hope, that a student who passes a particular paper will retain that knowledge for at least two years, and on completion of all papers over the course of a prescribed period could be said to understand all the prescribed areas, but with less anguish and a deeper appreciation of the law.  It is certainly the practice in England to examine progressively rather than in one big hit.[22]

22     Whilst the considerable challenge of the former system undoubtedly provided a standard or quality benchmark of sorts, a modular system permits a more measured and in depth learning experience, and would better permit the further reforms to the system which are proposed in this article.

23     It remains to be seen how the recent changes will affect pass rates, although it is noteworthy that some senior lawyers with whom the author has spoken are advising that their students still sit all exams at once, notwithstanding the recent changes.  Modularisation at least provides a choice to students, and is therefore, in the author’s opinion, a positive change.

Lack of legal ethics training

24     Whilst many students will have been trained in English rules governing the conduct of lawyers, many, if not most, will not practise as English lawyers in Jersey, and will operate instead under the Jersey Law Society Code of Conduct.  However, there has, until recently, been no training in or testing of students’ understanding of those provisions, and it is quite possible to qualify as a Jersey lawyer without ever having been taught the importance of legal ethics in practice.

25     It is imperative that lawyers can show an understanding of those rules,[23] and as such this should form part of the qualifying examinations.  Facts or questions surreptitiously presenting certain ethical tests could be included in some compulsory papers[24] which would accurately test a student’s reaction and grasp of ethical duties in practice.

26     A helpful change has already taken place however, with optional ethics training being provided, designed particularly for recently qualified Jersey lawyers.  Whilst, in the author’s opinion, students should be required to acquire and prove such understanding before qualification, to provide training and evaluation at all is a step in the right direction.

Proposals for further reform

27     When asked whether there was any aspect of the qualifying process which they would like to see reformed, the respondents to the author’s questionnaire all considered that there was scope for improvement in numerous areas.  Some of those suggestions have since been addressed in the most recent reforms to the system, dealt with above (particularly as regards the modularisation of the qualifying requirements).  However, there are other areas which may still merit some reform and have yet to be addressed.

Syllabus

28     Currently there are no dedicated study materials, save those provided by individual firms, whilst the introduction of a syllabus undoubtedly assists Jersey students, it confesses to being only ‘a guide’ and emphasizes that ‘the bibliographies are not an exhaustive or comprehensive statement of authorities’, in addition to being infrequently updated.  Students must still evaluate the necessary breadth of their studies themselves, and this was another major complaint of questionnaire respondents.  Previous students’ notes are often used as guides to the areas of law requiring attention, and are often coveted by students and jealously protected by their authors or the law firms who inherit them.  This is far from ideal.

29     ‘Equality of arms’ is a popular concept in modern law,[25] but this is not the experience of students in Jersey, with members of firms with the best collection of notes[26] obtaining a clear advantage over others who may have to compile their own materials from scratch.  Those notes to which members of smaller firms do have access are often out of date or otherwise inaccurate due to a lack of the resources required to maintain their currency.  One respondent lamented that ‘whereas in "usual" exams everyone starts with an even playing field and they are judged from then onwards, the playing field for the Jersey exams is relatively uneven from the start’.  This is exacerbated by the lack of an accessible Law Society library[27] which smaller firms, who do not have substantial libraries of their own, would most frequently make use of, including their students.

30     It is further suggested that the syllabus could be improved in content, for instance by removing the conveyancing paper as a compulsory subject.[28]  This would be principally because it is a specialist field and would not normally form part of a Jersey lawyer’s legal aid obligation.[29]  Moreover, few lawyers are likely to qualify into a dedicated conveyancing practice, most instead employing specialist conveyancers.  Incidentally, it is another deficiency that those conveyancers will themselves usually not hold any relevant, formal qualification.  To remedy this a separate conveyancing qualification should be awarded following completion of a course of study and examination,[30] thereby avoiding the waste of time for law students learning an area of law they will likely never work in, and ensuring some level of quality control amongst practising conveyancers.

31     In contrast it would appear perverse not to include family law as a compulsory subject, as it is an area in which legal aid is often given and for which lawyers are personally responsible, even if legal aid cases are often delegated to other practitioners within the firm.  This may do little to appease those many lawyers who complain of the number of examination subjects irrelevant to their practice, but whilst the legal aid system continues in its current form, all lawyers should be competent in those areas (in which they, after all,  will be duty bound to act) to avoid professional embarrassment.[31]

32     Sadly, it appears that the current system neither fully prepares a lawyer for legal aid work, nor allows for the specialisation which is the reality of modern practice.[32]

Greater number of options

33     Many respondents felt that their studies gave them an good grounding in law to use in practice and were an ‘excellent preparation’.  The overall impression, however, was that the exams and syllabus were more suited to aspirant litigators.  Corporate respondents generally considered the exams irrelevant to their practice, observing that ‘the academic study of Jersey law is almost entirely separate from … day-to-day work as a Jersey lawyer’ and that ‘the exams and practice are almost mutually exclusive.’  Others felt that the exams served only to ‘promote mediocrity through generality’.

34     However, the effective functioning of the legal aid system clearly depends upon lawyers having at least a basic understanding of certain areas, resulting in a tension between the growing trend towards specialisation (particularly in the corporate field) and the preservation of competence in the profession’s traditional practice areas.

35     As a major offshore finance centre the work of many Jersey lawyers is purely transactional, rendering the majority of the current syllabus entirely unrelated to their practice.  It must be a significant deficiency that, as one respondent remarked, ‘the Jersey exams are practically not relevant to practice’.  As such this was an area which many questionnaire respondents felt could be improved upon by the introduction of more option papers.  Indeed, with the modularisation of the examination process and the new possibility of spreading examinations over two years, it might arguably be possible to offer a greater choice of optional examinations, perhaps two more than the present, resulting in five compulsory subjects[33] and three option papers taken from a selection of six, a certain number of which would be based upon corporate areas, thereby allowing greater customisation of one’s training and qualification.

Advocacy and rights of audience

36     There is currently no compulsory advocacy training for qualification as a Jersey lawyer[34].  Some will have trained in advocacy at the English bar, but it remains quite possible to qualify with rights of audience to the Jersey Court of Appeal[35] without ever having received instruction on court advocacy.  Some thus feel that ‘there is definitely … a deficiency in the training system with regards to advocacy skills in the current examination process’ whilst others found that ‘having qualified I was left to attend court without any ideas of actual advocacy ... I made simple mistakes in the early days which I am sure irritated the judges.’

37     The introduction of pre-qualification advocacy training was a common suggestion for reform by respondents to my questionnaire, one stating that ‘I have recently been on the advocacy training course but it could have been something that would have been beneficial to do as part of the qualification process in order to build the skills and the confidence at an earlier stage.’

38     The advocacy training course referred to above is a two day post-qualification course run in Jersey, but whilst the attendance of new practitioners is expected, it remains optional and in any case will only be undertaken after many new lawyers have already made their first appearance(s) in court. 

39     The author would thus propose that for qualification as an advocate one should either have completed the bar vocational course or have qualified as an English solicitor-advocate, or be required to complete a course of advocacy training which might be taught by experienced local practitioners, visiting members of the English bar, or professional advocacy tutors from English bar schools.  The final assessment would be by an independent panel of English barristers or tutors.

40     Others would simply qualify as a solicitor and exercise lesser rights of audience.  The ‘promotion’ of solicitors to advocates simply after three years of practice would be stopped; there seems little reason to give higher rights of audience for having simply practised (outside of the Court) for a period.  To become an advocate, a solicitor would have to complete and pass the local advocacy course.

41     More experienced and better trained court lawyers can only result in more efficient trials and hearings, reducing the costs to clients and benefiting them with better representation.  The assurance of effective advocates is thus a crucial part of any efficient legal system.

Transparency and examiners

42     There is presently no dedicated, formal appeals system in place in either Jersey or Guernsey for students who might feel that an examiner’s decision is unfair or simply wrong.  As the Bailiff in Jersey is not involved in the examinations process he would in theory be available to hear any application for judicial review of a decision of the Board of Examiners, though it is hard to envisage the bringing of any application for judicial review being practicable, even if a student had an inclination to do so.[36]

43     There are also some lacunae in the rules and regulations governing the examinations, such as the lack of an express ‘mission statement’ to the Jersey syllabus, or other generally understood but not formally set down rules such as the 60% pass mark[37] or the requirement to pass both elements of a single paper to achieve an overall pass.  Such a nebulous structure serves only to blur the path and prevent the absolute transparency which most would agree to be desirable in such a system.

44     It is perhaps also not ideal to have current practitioners setting and marking papers which are taken by those who might be their employees.  Candidates are identifiable by numbers only, but of course handwritten scripts may be identified by those familiar with that person’s handwriting.  There is, of course, a conflict between a practitioner setting exams and perhaps also being involved in training at his or her own firm or using legal problems which may already have arisen in that firm’s practice.

45     Finally, as knowledgeable as senior practitioners will be, the setting of exam papers per se is not their usual practice, and stories abound of illogical questions[38], missing parts of questions[39], and other examination mishaps.

46     Of course, whilst the appointment of practising lawyers as examiners is, as I suggest, potentially flawed, this is not to the discredit of the examiners themselves.  The author’s discussions with one examiner revealed that a great deal of valuable time is expended upon the examinations process, with marking requiring about three hours per script; it is not an enviable role.  Such is the burden of being an examiner that it is often the larger firms who are approached before those smaller firms whose lawyers would less easily absorb the addition work.

Competition Law

47     On 4^th May 2004 the Belgian Court of Appeal held that professional regulations of bar associations are subject to competition rules, and that, following the decision of the European Court of Justice in Wouters,[40] lawyers are undertakings and as such subject to the rules controlling competition.

48     It may thus be that there are elements of the Jersey legal education system which would require consideration in light of the Competition (Jersey) Law 2005.  For instance, it might be argued that the current examinations process unduly restricts access to the profession, particularly as it is largely presided over by existing practitioners who, it might be imagined, could wish to protect their practices by limiting competition.  It is true, of course, that the Deputy Bailiff (as President), Attorney General, and Solicitor General, are all members of the Board of Examiners, and are not in private practice.  Nevertheless, it is only the latter two that have active involvement in the marking of papers and this is restricted to specific examinations only. It is also right to observe that they (like the other examiners) are likely to have students working within their department who sit the exams which they may have set, and which they may further be charged with marking.  One can see that there may be a perceived danger of unfair advantage in such situations, and whilst such advantage will rarely, if ever, exist, it is vital to maintain safeguards and an appropriate separation between examiner and examinee.  It is to this end that the establishment of an independent body of examiners who set and mark papers is so vital, and this may best be dealt with via the mechanism of a school of law.

49     Ironically, improving the system might help protect the profession from large firms of English solicitors eager for a slice of the valuable Jersey legal industry, by increasing the amount of Jersey qualified lawyers, and further promoting genuinely Jersey law, thereby resisting the influx of law which is fundamentally English (see below).

Law school or institute

50     Another reform suggested in the questionnaire responses was the provision of professional tuition in preparation for the examinations, ideally by way of a dedicated law school run by two or three full-time, professional lecturers recruited either from local practitioners desiring a change of career, or academics and professional legal tutors from other mixed jurisdictions such as Scotland, South Africa or Quebec.  In fact some centralized training was provided by the Jersey Law Society for a short period as was noted in the Legal Practice Committee Report, RC 35/1993. Unfortunately, and despite the wish expressed in the report that such lectures be maintained and developed from year to year, they soon came to a halt.

51     The notion of a law school in Jersey has, however, recently gained greater momentum under the auspices of the Bailiff who in November, 2007 announced the impending incorporation of a Jersey Institute of Law.  Such plans are as yet still at an early stage, however, and much preparation is yet required before the Institution is up and running.  It is a quite viable project however, with similar law colleges already existing in small jurisdictions, as the Bailiff has previously outlined -

“In the Cayman Islands there is a law school.  In the Caribbean there is the University of the West Indies with law faculties in several small jurisdictions.  Malta and Iceland have their own universities where law is taught.”[41]

52     Teaching might be by evening and/or weekend lectures, some prescribed self-teaching, and/or the use of online teaching resources such as recorded lectures, online materials and study programs.

53     The school would additionally be able to absorb the burden of setting and marking exam papers, and drawing up and maintaining an up-to-date syllabus for students.  The school could also undertake the compilation of required study materials (including notes on each examination subject) and produce packs available for students to purchase.  This would address the most frequent complaints of Jersey law students, and students have said that they would be more than willing to pay for the benefit of not having to assemble the material themselves.  This would make far more sense than each person individually spending a great deal of time doing something which might be less than accurate and which instead could be done by those already versed in the law and simply copied.  Better still, published academic works on Jersey law would assist students to gain a deeper knowledge of the relevant core subjects and to use their available time more effectively. As the Bailiff has simply but pointedly put; “Textbooks are an essential tool”[42].  However, as the Legal Practice Committee Report also observes, “…the production of books will not suffice.  It must be supplemented by the provision of proper teaching.”

Promotion of Jersey law

54     A major concern expressed frequently by the profession as a whole, and by the respondents to the questionnaire, is that Jersey is succumbing to a tide of English legal influence,[43] largely resulting from the predominance of the English language[44] and the English academic and professional training received by most Jersey lawyers.  The result is that lawyers are often unwilling or unable to apply the traditional Norman French texts and instead rely too heavily upon English legal doctrines.  In this respect Guernsey students are required to spend time at university in Caen, whilst this requirement existed for only a short period from 1989 in Jersey.  Unfortunately, the feedback I have received is that the course was not held in high regard by Jersey attendees, with the legal teaching being considered quite rudimentary.  In Guernsey, however, I am told that this is often viewed as a valuable part of training, though others disagree strongly, particularly corporate lawyers. The  view expressed in the Legal Practice Committee Report (to which reference has already been made) was to the effect that education in jurisdictions other than Jersey was insufficient for those aspiring to be Jersey lawyers:  “study at Caen will not provide comprehensive instruction in Jersey law any more than will study in England.”[45]

55     The great benefit of a law school would be the improvement in students’ understanding of Jersey law and in particular the promotion of the island’s Norman texts and customs.  In this respect, some lessons might be given by visiting lecturers from the University of Caen, regaining part of the benefit of tuition in Norman customary law without the cost and burden of spending three months living there.[46]

56     A law school would also encourage academic debate and discussion and so the development of our own law.  W. B. Yeats once said that ‘education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire’ and this may be the only way to save Jersey’s laws from gradual dissolution.  One questionnaire respondent considered ‘it’s ridiculous to set academic-style exams on a legal system where there is no academic research/study of that legal system.’  An Institute of Law would undoubtedly assist in remedying this, and it is clear that this is what is hoped for -

“Institutes and colleges of law are of course not just for teaching students.  Research and academic writing are essential parts of the functions of institutes of legal learning.  As Professor Gretton wrote in the last issue of the Review – ‘If a system of substantive law is to survive it needs many things.  One is education. … a system of law needs a literature, and a literature needs writers and readers,  In a small population both must be few, and the absence of an academic environment makes things more difficult, for the one thing academics will do is write…’”.[47]

The corollary, of course, of this view is that without renewed interest in Jersey law and its continued application and development, there would seem to be little point in maintaining the near exclusive rights of audience of Jersey qualified lawyers in the Jersey Courts. In this context, the Jersey legal profession might be concerned by the already growing ability of non-Jersey lawyers to appear in certain categories of cases.[48]

57     Even further than this, the existence of an Institute of Law has been said to be “an important building block in providing information about Jersey culture and identity”.[49]

Funding

If you think education is expensive, try ignorance!!![50]

58     Under the current system, the cost to employers of each student’s paid study leave[51], including the loss of revenues during those periods, was estimated by one advocate as approaching £100,000.  Given the number of students (on average 26 per year), this constitutes a vast sum of money.  A further cost is the time of senior lawyers spent setting and marking papers, which is considerable (see above).

59     The principal costs of a law school would be the salaries of teaching staff including visiting lecturers and advocacy tutors, and of accommodation for the school.  Professional legal lecturers presently attract salaries of about £40,000 in central London, whilst the States of Jersey might be persuaded to permit the housing of a school in a public building such as Highlands College, at lower cost than private rental would otherwise be.

60     Appropriate examination fees and charges made for attendance of advocacy courses and conveyancing courses would meet these costs, with the sale of study material packs and/or official publications also generating revenue.  There would no longer be the need for costly periods of leave as well as improved success rates meaning law firms should be happy to contribute substantial fees for their students’ education.

61     The costs might further be met through co-operation between Jersey and Guernsey.  Island law firms are increasingly working together, and the Bailiff has advocated that ‘it is “undeniably right” that the islands were stronger working together than apart’.[52]  Some differences would remain, but in many instances students from both islands could be taught together.

Conclusion

62     As ever, and perhaps particularly in the Channel Islands, change can be a slow and difficult process.  It appears to the author however, that the education of local lawyers is of fundamental importance to the islands as a whole, and that until recently the arrangements in place arguably could not be relied upon to ensure the quality of practitioner and service which the people of Jersey and Guernsey (and clients around the world) deserve in their dealings in the islands.  It remains to be seen how the numerous, recent changes will affect the profession, but if ‘the test of every religious, political, or educational system is the man that it forms’[53] it is suggested that the above proposals would be shown to be a success on many levels, not least in the betterment of Jersey and Guernsey’s lawyers.  When the legal education system was described by a member of the bar as a ‘Dickensian regime which really serves no purpose’, it is clear that the most recent reforms were long overdue, but further reforms are still necessary. 

Ultimately -

“Our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education. The human mind is our fundamental resource”.[54]

Jean-Marie Renouf is a barrister and associate lawyer of Jersey law firm Hanson Renouf.

Return to Contents