The announcement yesterday by the Law Society of Upper Canada that lawyers in Ontario can get licensed without articling if they complete a Law Practice Program (LPP) has re-ignited a longstanding debate: is the province heading toward a two-tiered licensing system?

The theory goes like this: those who go through the LPP will be seen as less qualified than those who article, becoming, in essence, an underclass of unemployable lawyers.

It is possible, though, that the reverse might be true, says Thomas Conway, the treasurer of LSUC.

Before unpacking his argument, here is a recap of what LSUC revealed yesterday. Starting September 2014, the first LPP classes will be held at Ryerson University and the University of Ottawa, with Ryerson offering the program in English and Ottawa teaching in French. Plus, LSUC added another route to becoming a full-fledged lawyer: simply attend law school at Lakehead. Next year, in its second year of existence, Lakehead Law will integrate practical training and work placements into its three-year program, paving the way for students to practice immediately after graduating and passing the bar exam.

After several years in development, LSUC insists these programs improve the current licensing process.

“If people are fair-minded and take a look at the programs that Ryerson, the University of Ottawa and Lakehead are offering, then I think the sceptics are going to be convinced that articling may not be, and probably isn’t, the best way to provide legal training,” says Conway.

Most law school graduates article in large downtown firms in an urban environment, he explains. “Then, five years later, after they’ve been called to the bar, most of them aren’t going to be in a large firm — they’re going to be at a medium firm, a small firm or not working in a firm at all.”

In contrast, the LPP and Lakehead models are expected, at least in theory, to cater placements to the career plans of each student.

At Ryerson, for example, after completing four months of course work, students will work in legal environments where articling positions are harder to find, such as in-house counsel, rural and remote firms, and criminal practices.

Small firms and in-house legal departments have already committed to taking on students, says Avner Levin, the director at Ryerson’s law research centre, which developed the school’s LPP.

There are also potential downsides: Ryerson cannot guarantee all placements will be paid and, as a result of the new programs, LSUC licensing fees will be raised around $2,000.

Still, says Levin, aspiring lawyers can expect to be trained in a field in which they want to build a career.

That’s not to say articling has no value at all, says Conway, who is not calling for the elimination of articling altogether.

“If you want to be like me — a litigator in a private law firm — articling still makes a whole lot of sense,” he says. “But if you want to do other things, like work at an NGO, a criminal defence practice or immigration law practice, articling isn’t really going to do it for you.”

Update: An earlier version of this story implied that those registered in the LPP will pay more in licensing fees than candidates who article. In fact, candidates who choose the LPP will pay the same licensing fee as those who choose to article.