Continuous Legal Education.

 

The position in Namibia may not be so unique; to become a legal practitioner the LLB degree is the first step. Since the Advocates Act and the Attorneys Act was repealed in 1996, a person with an LLB degree cannot enter the legal profession without first going through practical training. This practical training is known as JTC programme [Justice Training Centre] which requires that the candidate attend to lectures and passing an examination while also being attached to a law firm. In theory, this can be done within a year, if the candidate attend 80% of each of the eleven subjects lectured, do the required hours in attachment and submit a diary to prove what exposure the candidate underwent, pass the examinations and the Board of Legal Education gets its management administration in line to reflect some level of efficiency to finalise the certificates within a month of two after the examination results are known.

 

Historically, a person with an LLB degree was able to apply for admission as advocate and enter practice directly with his/her degree. In Namibia this is no longer possible.

 

Once admitted as legal practitioner the person can practice as the traditional attorney or advocate, however as in most parts of Southern Africa, the BAR, i.e. the Association of Advocate is a voluntary association. To become such a member thereof, a legal practitioner must apply and meet the requirements the association set for entry into the association, which include the tradition of pupillage system.

 

The question is, looking as legal education, why is it that members of associations of advocates are generally respected as people who know what they are doing and are seen as experts, regardless of years of experience?

 

In my mind, the associations are doing something right and that is the pupillage system. Remember, historically advocates are experts in litigation and giving legal opinions. The pupillage system is a one-on-one apprenticeship model. The pupil (legal practitioner in-training) closely observes his master (experienced advocate) as a trusted mentor. The pupil does not receive remuneration and cannot charge fees, but assists and shadows the master for a period of at least six months and then successfully complete the examinations. The pupil’s goal is to develop a parallel practice one day and received individual training while the association ensures that their members have a minimum skill level to function as an advocate. The pupil, inter alia, has to work through a reading list [case law and handbooks] ensuring knowledge of the latest law pertaining to litigation is gathered.

 

To become a legal practitioner a LLB graduate must go through the JTC programme – period of practical training and lectures - the candidate legal practitioner is attached to a firm, receive a salary and as a result become a cost centre and the law firm usually would like to see that the investment [salary] has a financial return, i.e. the business must make money and consequently the services of the candidate are charged to clients. It is common, and if I am wrong a would like to be convinced thereof, that the candidates, once admitted, is not sufficiently prepared for legal practice, even though he/she met all the requirements and was admitted by the High Court of Namibia to practice.

 

The legal practitioner in practice charge by the hour. The legal practitioner as principal to whom the candidate is attached, spend time guiding and directing the candidate, which hours are not chargeable. It seems that some principals do not do so, assuming the “JTC” programme should attend to such guidance, perhaps a over ambitious expectation. If time is spent doing so, the principals invest time and effort, how frustrating it may be, ends up with a professional that is trusted to become a knowledgeable and skilled lawyer in the firm and the principal further wants to see a financial return on investment and the newly admitted legal practitioner receive a salary below expectations, in which case the firm does not retain the new professional and the next candidate will probably be treated with less commitment.

 

I think the pupillage system; a working successful model should be adapted to the JTC system. The financial obligations and commitment of obtaining an LLB degree and then another period of little or no income is not well received by the average person and remain an obstacle, similar to any professional education programme. The financial aspect is a hurdle, but the quality of education and training should not be sacrificed. The financial hurdle is a completed different aspect to the content and expectations of the educational system, with which I do not intend to deal herein.

 

Legal practitioners are however to some extend generalists while advocates are specialised in litigation. To take a newly admitted generalist to expert level; experience, exposure and in-house training are needed. There is no doubt that scaling in-house or on-going training will address the learning deficits accompanied by an increasing requirement of senior partners’ time.

 

Making a bold statement that; there is a training deficit, requires that the initial expectations and promises be quantified.

 

What is the purpose of the LLB degree?

It is my opinion, that universities produce people with a relative knowledge of the substantive law, without any compulsory practical experience.

 

What is the purpose of the JTC programme?

The JTC is to supplement the LLB degree with practical experience and prepare a person for legal practice.

 

What is the law student’s expectation when the LLB degree has been obtained?

Generally the graduate expects to enter legal practice with ease as soon as possible and receive an above average income as return of investing years of study; to be part of a business and not knowing what is the difference between a profession and a business.

 

To run a law firm, requires some business acumen, understanding how a business plan should be prepared or developed, be able to do basic accounting, cash flow forecasts and management accounts and to be able to use in delivering services. Shockingly, I do not see compulsory courses at either university level or JTC addressing business skills and computer skills, which are undoubtedly part of today’s legal practice. The obvious next question is: Who was responsible to teach the student those skills?

 

The growing continuously changing positive law has always been fast changing as legislation is promulgated regularly and the High Court delivers judgments daily. 30 years ago the information technology was slow and it took weeks if not months for the law resources [publications] to reach practitioners. Today, it is a question of hours and whomever has the best access, ability and technology, appears to me miles ahead of the rest.

 

I have a lot to say, but is the situation really so difficult to address?

 

In the precedent system we have the law changes daily. The IT develops rapidly with more and more ways the World Wide Web and use of smart phones give people access to more information rapidly. It seems the generally liberal attitude of lawyers tends to be nullified by the traditional-bound conservative outlook at the content of the law studies, practical training and principal/candidate transfer of skills and knowledge.

 

Producing lawyers for the new generation, the content of the LLB degree, the content and manner of practical training, the identification of which institution should be responsible for what level of training must be clarified. Another year of research and committee meetings followed by proposals and considerations are not the answer.

 

The legal education should be preparing professionals with realistic expectations and sufficiently skilled for the real world, now. To research and debate another couple of years will guarantee that the content and quality of legal education in three years’ time will be three years behind and three years out of date, at best.

 

And that is about what I have to say today.