“I struggled with getting an articling position, but I would have jumped at the opportunity to take a practical legal training course right off the bat,” Andrew Sudano, a recent law school graduate, told the crowd at a public consultation that the Law Society of Upper Canada’s Articling Task Force held earlier this year in Toronto.

While the task force had made five recommendations for addressing the ongoing articling problem in the province, option number four — retaining articling but offering a practical legal training course (PLTC) as a voluntary alternative — was the main topic of conversation at the public meeting.
This approach, which is already used in some Australian states, would likely involve law school grads doing an in-class component that focuses on hands-on issues such as courtroom skills and ethical dilemmas. In addition, students would do an unpaid law- setting placement shorter than 10 months.

Tom Conway, chair of the task force, says this option is still in the theoretical phase and the LSUC does not yet know exactly how it would look. The courses would be offered by a third party, probably a not-for-profit, and would adhere to standards set out by the Law Society.

Why was this recommendation such a hit at the Toronto meeting and the other public consultations held across Ontario?

At the meeting, Conway said that PLTCs could become a preferred choice for students who want to enter criminal law or for those going into solo or small practices — there are few articling positions that prepare grads for these career paths, and courses could be customized to offer them more specialized training.

Lawyers who want to practice in small towns or cities would also benefit: 79 percent of existing articling positions are in the Toronto and Ottawa areas, with 65 percent in the GTA.

While attendees expressed concern that this option would create a two-tiered system for new grads, many felt these benefits could prevent this from happening.

It could also make the system more equitable, as mature law school grads and those from diverse — particularly aboriginal — backgrounds may be at a disadvantage under the existing articling system.

Conway and the rest of the task force will wrap up the consultation period on March 15. They will then report to the LSUC’s board in May with final recommendations.

Five options

In 2011, 214 Ontario law grads (12 percent of the batch) could not find an articling position. The Articling Task Force consultation report outlines recommendations for better serving these future lawyers:

1. The Status Quo: The LSUC would continue its current approach, letting market forces determine the number of articling spots.
2. The Status Quo with Quality Assurance Improvement: The LSUC would add systemic assessments or benchmarks to evaluate articling students’ competence to make the existing system more consistent.
3. Post-Licensing Transition Requirement: Articling would be scrapped but sole and small firm practitioners would be required to complete transitional training after their licensing exams.
4. Articling or a Practical Legal Training Course (PLTC): The articling program would continue but law grads could take a PLTC instead.
5. PLTC Only: Articling would be abolished and replaced with a PLTC requirement.