MPs hear evidence on legal training, regulation and litigation funding
MPs have been told that the training of lawyers in England and Wales “is not good enough”, as the Justice Committee examined the legal services market and access to justice.
During the third evidence session of its inquiry, the cross-party committee chaired by Andy Slaughter heard from academics and sector representatives about regulation, consumer protection, and litigation funding.
Dr Liz Curran, associate professor at Nottingham Law School, told MPs that both university-level legal education and continuing professional development (CPD) required improvement. She said there had been a “missed opportunity” to strengthen mandatory CPD requirements, pointing to Australia as an example where lawyers must complete compulsory training in areas such as ethics, client communication, trauma-informed practice, and working with vulnerable groups.
Dr. Curran said regulators and the profession could do more to improve standards, describing the inquiry as “a wonderful opportunity” for legal regulators to act.
The session also heard from Tom Hayhoe, chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel. While acknowledging that many lawyers provide high-quality service, Mr. Hayhoe suggested that qualification pathways now allow for a narrower base of legal knowledge. He said younger lawyers may lack exposure to areas such as housing and welfare law, which could limit their ability to undertake pro bono work effectively.
Dr. Curran also called for the introduction of mandatory pro bono requirements, particularly for firms undertaking significant government contract work. Drawing on her experience in Australia, she cited the state of Victoria, where mandatory pro bono obligations linked to government contracts have operated for two decades. She said this had led to a cultural shift, with firms establishing in-house pro bono units and demonstrating a stronger commitment to access to justice.
She argued that firms receiving substantial public sector work, including public inquiries, could reasonably be expected to contribute pro bono services in return.
Mr. Hayhoe expressed reservations about mandating pro bono. He told MPs that such an approach risked acting as a “sticking plaster” over wider structural issues. He argued that the decline of legal aid had created market failures and that innovation in funding and service delivery should be prioritised instead.
The inquiry is examining how the provision of legal advice and representation has evolved following restrictions to legal aid, and exploring future innovation in funding models, regulation, and technology. A second panel session focused on litigation funding and its potential role in enhancing access to justice.