Post by litigator on Aug 3, 2007 20:10:00 GMT -5
Problems with Law Society Licensing Process
BY SAAD AHMAD
This year, the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”) introduced a new licensing program for law graduates hoping to be called to the bar.
Many students, however, emerged from the process with bitter feelings towards the legal profession’s governing body. In particular, they took issue with their treatment at the hands of LSUC officials, as well as both the course materials and the organization of the Toronto examinations.
Student dissatisfaction was so high that most students contacted for this article were unwilling to go on record with their criticisms, for fear of retribution by the LSUC.
The new licensing process consists of three separate components: the Skills and Professional Responsibility Program, Licensing Examinations, and 10 months of articles. The revamp discards the old Bar Admissions Course, which consisted of an 18 academic phase, comprised of 8 separate courses on various aspects of law, each with its own exam. These courses, on topics such as public law, family law, estate planning, and business law, were poorly attended, and have now been scrapped in favour of self-study materials. Students first completed the Skills and Professional Responsibility Program, designed to provide the skills needed for the practice of law. This stage consisted of 5 weeks of classes, running from May 8 to June 9. These classes, which did not include education in substantive legal topics, were followed by two 7-hour, self-study, open-book, multiple-choice Licensing Examinations: a Solicitor Examination on June 26 and a Barrister Examination on July 6.
However, these study materials, as well as the nature of the examinations themselves, proved contentious. There was a consensus among the students interviewed for this article that the materials were not of acceptable quality. Yousef Rehman described the materials as “too dense to read.” Keir Wilmut concurred. He felt that the materials were “poorly written, and out of date.” Students also stated that the exams did not test their knowledge of the law, but rather tested their ability to flip through materials and find answers. Rehman noted that “it was more just a matter of knowing where things were in the materials and then looking them up on the exam.” Wilmut concurred. “Because the exams were open-book and multiple choice, there was no need to learn the material. The questions focused on obscure legal rules, and it was simply a matter of using someone else’s index and looking up the answer.”
In addition to the narrow focus of the questions, students broached more troubling concerns. In particular, the combination of professional responsibility and substantive questions raised the possibility that examinees could get all question on ethics and professional responsibility wrong and still pass.
All criticisms about the nature of the materials and questions paled beside those related to the examination process.
Interviewees complained about understaffing, delays, strict security measures, breaks, access to bathrooms, and a combative tone set by the Law Society. Examinees were required to conform with a lengthy set of “security” measures, which, among other things, forced students to leave all materials brought into the exam hall behind, required that students bring permitted items in clear plastic bags, and required that those same clear plastic bags be checked before students could leave.
In an interview with U of T Law graduate Melissa Kluger for the online magazine Law and Style (http://www.lawandstyle.ca), Diana Miles, the LSUC’s Director, Professional Development & Competence defended these measures saying, “The efficacy and integrity of the examination bank depends on students not taking questions out of the examination room. We wouldn’t want them writing stuff down and then removing it from the room.”
Students were required to register before each exam, but the start of the first exam was delayed considerably due to the inability of LSUC staff to process students quickly enough to start on time. While interviewees were uncertain about precise numbers, they estimated that there were roughly 6 or 7 LSUC staff to check-in approximately 900 students, and several were adamant that the examination was understaffed. Although the exam got underway at least an hour late, no extra time was allotted for lunch, which had originally been slated to run from 12:30 to 2:00.
At the end of the examination, there was a rush for the restrooms. Some students had delayed a trip during the exam to avoid losing time, while others had not been permitted to go to the bathrooms out of a concern that too many people would be there at the same time. However, LSUC staff did not want students to rise before all examinations were collected, and made announcements accordingly. Upon the collection of materials, which Yousef estimated took approximately 15 to 20 minutes, examinees had to line up at one exit to have their clear plastic bags checked before they could leave.
Many of the check-in issues were resolved on the Barrister Examination. However, before examinees could begin the exam, they were addressed by Diana Miles. Many students had expected this to be an apology for the poor organization, and were surprised to receive a stern 10-minute lecture on how they had behaved poorly at the last exam. Ms. Miles threatened the examinees with the possibility of not being admitted to the bar, a comment that Wilmut described as “inappropriate.” Another student noted that making this announcement immediately prior to writing the exam may have affected her performance.
In the interview with Law and Style’s Online Magazine, Ms. Miles claims that “The students were reminded of their professional obligations and they were set out in their exam rules and protocols. And they were reminded of the consequences of misconduct or the breach of those rules because that type of activity is, of course, disruptive to the other students and their colleagues in the room.”
It should be noted that not all interviewees were as upset. Doug Robertson felt that LSUC merely needed to “iron out some kinks” on the first exam, and that the second exam was much better organized. Similarly, Yousef emphasized that this was the first time the Law Society ran the new process. However, these views were clearly in the minority.
Students were particularly angered by the Law Society’s attitude towards them, particularly Ms. Miles’ speech and the exit checks. One student said it was “pitiful how little courtesy and respect we were shown,” she closed by saying “I am very disappointed in [the LSUC] and will be very cautious in any dealings I have with them.”
BY SAAD AHMAD
This year, the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”) introduced a new licensing program for law graduates hoping to be called to the bar.
Many students, however, emerged from the process with bitter feelings towards the legal profession’s governing body. In particular, they took issue with their treatment at the hands of LSUC officials, as well as both the course materials and the organization of the Toronto examinations.
Student dissatisfaction was so high that most students contacted for this article were unwilling to go on record with their criticisms, for fear of retribution by the LSUC.
The new licensing process consists of three separate components: the Skills and Professional Responsibility Program, Licensing Examinations, and 10 months of articles. The revamp discards the old Bar Admissions Course, which consisted of an 18 academic phase, comprised of 8 separate courses on various aspects of law, each with its own exam. These courses, on topics such as public law, family law, estate planning, and business law, were poorly attended, and have now been scrapped in favour of self-study materials. Students first completed the Skills and Professional Responsibility Program, designed to provide the skills needed for the practice of law. This stage consisted of 5 weeks of classes, running from May 8 to June 9. These classes, which did not include education in substantive legal topics, were followed by two 7-hour, self-study, open-book, multiple-choice Licensing Examinations: a Solicitor Examination on June 26 and a Barrister Examination on July 6.
However, these study materials, as well as the nature of the examinations themselves, proved contentious. There was a consensus among the students interviewed for this article that the materials were not of acceptable quality. Yousef Rehman described the materials as “too dense to read.” Keir Wilmut concurred. He felt that the materials were “poorly written, and out of date.” Students also stated that the exams did not test their knowledge of the law, but rather tested their ability to flip through materials and find answers. Rehman noted that “it was more just a matter of knowing where things were in the materials and then looking them up on the exam.” Wilmut concurred. “Because the exams were open-book and multiple choice, there was no need to learn the material. The questions focused on obscure legal rules, and it was simply a matter of using someone else’s index and looking up the answer.”
In addition to the narrow focus of the questions, students broached more troubling concerns. In particular, the combination of professional responsibility and substantive questions raised the possibility that examinees could get all question on ethics and professional responsibility wrong and still pass.
All criticisms about the nature of the materials and questions paled beside those related to the examination process.
Interviewees complained about understaffing, delays, strict security measures, breaks, access to bathrooms, and a combative tone set by the Law Society. Examinees were required to conform with a lengthy set of “security” measures, which, among other things, forced students to leave all materials brought into the exam hall behind, required that students bring permitted items in clear plastic bags, and required that those same clear plastic bags be checked before students could leave.
In an interview with U of T Law graduate Melissa Kluger for the online magazine Law and Style (http://www.lawandstyle.ca), Diana Miles, the LSUC’s Director, Professional Development & Competence defended these measures saying, “The efficacy and integrity of the examination bank depends on students not taking questions out of the examination room. We wouldn’t want them writing stuff down and then removing it from the room.”
Students were required to register before each exam, but the start of the first exam was delayed considerably due to the inability of LSUC staff to process students quickly enough to start on time. While interviewees were uncertain about precise numbers, they estimated that there were roughly 6 or 7 LSUC staff to check-in approximately 900 students, and several were adamant that the examination was understaffed. Although the exam got underway at least an hour late, no extra time was allotted for lunch, which had originally been slated to run from 12:30 to 2:00.
At the end of the examination, there was a rush for the restrooms. Some students had delayed a trip during the exam to avoid losing time, while others had not been permitted to go to the bathrooms out of a concern that too many people would be there at the same time. However, LSUC staff did not want students to rise before all examinations were collected, and made announcements accordingly. Upon the collection of materials, which Yousef estimated took approximately 15 to 20 minutes, examinees had to line up at one exit to have their clear plastic bags checked before they could leave.
Many of the check-in issues were resolved on the Barrister Examination. However, before examinees could begin the exam, they were addressed by Diana Miles. Many students had expected this to be an apology for the poor organization, and were surprised to receive a stern 10-minute lecture on how they had behaved poorly at the last exam. Ms. Miles threatened the examinees with the possibility of not being admitted to the bar, a comment that Wilmut described as “inappropriate.” Another student noted that making this announcement immediately prior to writing the exam may have affected her performance.
In the interview with Law and Style’s Online Magazine, Ms. Miles claims that “The students were reminded of their professional obligations and they were set out in their exam rules and protocols. And they were reminded of the consequences of misconduct or the breach of those rules because that type of activity is, of course, disruptive to the other students and their colleagues in the room.”
It should be noted that not all interviewees were as upset. Doug Robertson felt that LSUC merely needed to “iron out some kinks” on the first exam, and that the second exam was much better organized. Similarly, Yousef emphasized that this was the first time the Law Society ran the new process. However, these views were clearly in the minority.
Students were particularly angered by the Law Society’s attitude towards them, particularly Ms. Miles’ speech and the exit checks. One student said it was “pitiful how little courtesy and respect we were shown,” she closed by saying “I am very disappointed in [the LSUC] and will be very cautious in any dealings I have with them.”