The Former Solicitor Apprenticeship Scheme: A Reflection

Tony Caher, Retired Solicitor

As part of the consultation process on entry into the profession, the Society is examining the former system of solicitor apprenticeship. I have been tasked to give my impressions of the old apprentice arrangements of which I was one of the last participants in 1978. As my memory of that time has faded with the proliferation of birthdays I have asked my former colleague, John McGettrick, to assist and corroborate some of those recollections.

John and I commenced our apprenticeships on the same day in the same office in Trevor Smyth & Co in September 1975. John had an arts degree from Queen’s University Belfast while I graduated with a law degree from University College Dublin. The apprenticeship lasted three years although the year below us had the apprenticeship compressed into two years, allowing them to qualify at the same time as us.

The apprenticeship required us to work full time, doing a minimum 40 hours weekly, carrying out duties as required by the relevant master. John and I felt we had work experience that was stimulating and contributed to our legal education. We were given considerable responsibility, managing case files of substance and complexity. I had the privilege of handling serious criminal trials in the Crown Court and attending upon some of the most able Counsel ever seen in this jurisdiction. Remuneration was poor with each of us earning £10 initially, rising to £15 in the final year. This equates to roughly £100-£150 today. The current National Living Wage is £480! Both of us had to augment those earnings by carrying out extra work outside our requisite legal work. John lectured part time and I served court processes in the evening. It should be pointed out that all fees were discharged by the firm.

In addition to work duties, we had to attend lectures in various legal subjects culminating in an examination in each at year’s end. There was a maximum of seven subjects each year. If apprentices had studied a particular subject at undergraduate level, then that student would have an exemption in that subject for the solicitor apprenticeship exams. John had no exemptions nor did I, having studied law outside the UK. Lectures were not frequent and were held at times designed to reduce impact on apprentices’ attendance at the office. The Society set the exams and retained eminent practitioners to deliver the lectures and mark the papers. We were given a week off work each year before the exams for final preparation. In addition to the core legal subjects that most law graduates had studied at university we were required to take additional subjects such as Bankruptcy and Solicitors Accounts. The quality of lecturers and course materials was of the highest standard. Our recollection is that nearly everyone passed.

We both agreed that we thought the system insofar as it treated us was excellent. Of course, we were fortunate in obtaining positions in a medium sized firm which carried out a wide selection of work and had a number of qualified staff to whom we could go to seek advice and assistance. The drawback of the system was the absence of monitoring and control of the in-house training afforded by some firms. There is no doubt that a minority of apprentices was exploited as cheap labour delivering documents, filing and lodging papers in court, functions more appropriate to office juniors. Nevertheless, there were many positive features. The opportunity was there for apprentices to gain vast experience of practical legal services and to demonstrate to firms that they were indispensable to the future success of practices. Their commitment to practical work and comparatively low costs made an apprentice a very attractive option for a firm. This resulted in exponential growth in the profession and ensured the intake came from all sectors and the widest geographical area.