Closed Consultation
Trainee solicitors minimum salary
24 May 2007
This consultation is now closed.
In October 2006, we began a consultation exercise on the future of the required minimum salary for trainee solicitors. The consultation period ended on 19 January 2007.
The SRA Board has now carefully considered the minimum salary requirement for trainee solicitors, taking account of the results of the consultation, which showed overwhelming support for the retention of a minimum salary. The board has decided to retain the current arrangements for the time being, although it considers that the regulatory arguments for minimum salaries remain unresolved. The board will review the matter in the light of forthcoming changes to solicitors' training arrangements.
You can download an analysis of the consultation responses or read a summary of the analysis.
Analysis of responses to trainee minimum salary consultation—summary
A substantial majority of those who responded to the consultation favoured retention of the minimum salary requirement.
Profile of respondents
Most responses came from individuals. Nearly two-thirds of respondents were trainee solicitors. Organisations made up nearly 12 per cent of responses.
Strategic outcomes
Most people thought that the minimum salary helped ensure that those joining the profession came from a wide range of backgrounds and experience. Majorities of firms with trainees, as well as solicitors, trainees, students and paralegals all held this view. Only the authorised firms without trainees indicated that it met none of the SRA's key strategic outcomes.
Main objective
A majority within each group felt that the main objective of the minimum salary was to protect trainees from exploitation; the majority of these people felt that, for the most part, it achieved this objective.
Minimum, recommended, or no regulation?
The majority of all respondents felt that the SRA should continue to set both a prescribed minimum and a recommended minimum salary. A higher proportion of trainees held this view than was the case with other groups, but it was still the most favoured option amongst each respondent group.
Public confidence
Most people thought that removal would have no effect on public confidence in the profession, mainly because there was little public awareness that the minimum salary existed at all.
Standards in the profession
Nearly three-quarters of all respondents thought that removal of the minimum salary requirement would lower standards in the profession. Firms with trainees, as well as all the groups of individual respondents, held this view. Most firms without trainees thought that there would be no effect on standards.
Access
Over 70 per cent of respondents thought that removing the minimum salary requirement would reduce access to the profession. A lower percentage of firms with trainees and 'other' organisations saw a risk of reduced access.
Impact of removal
The majority of respondents saw exploitation of trainees as potentially the most significant impact of the removal of the minimum salary requirement. Every respondent category, other than the 'other' organisations and individual groups, saw exploitation as the main risk. The largest proportion of the 'other' organisation group stated that more training positions would be created, and the 'other' individual group stated that professional standards would be lowered.
Would firms be more likely to employ trainees?
The majority of firms thought that removal of the minimum salary would have no impact on their recruitment of trainees. However, 18 firms—20 per cent of all organisation respondents—said that they would be more likely to take on trainees if there were no minimum salary requirement.