Are the Foundations of Legal Knowledge still relevant?

The debate around core subjects in the legal curriculum seems to be endless. There have been numerous reviews and changes over the years. So are the Foundations of Legal Knowledge still relevant?

There are two ways to approach this. One is the question of whether there should be any compulsory subjects at all. The other is whether the current seven are the right ones.

The first question has been shaken up by the reforms to the solicitors' route to qualification that have effectively abolished not only compulsory subjects on a Law degree but even the requirement to have a Law degree or conversion diploma at all. The SQE requires study of "Functioning Legal Knowledge", but the set-up allows it to adapt quickly to changing needs and the knowledge is tested through the SQE exam itself, rather than in the degree. So there's less of a need to prescribe a compulsory element of the degree curriculum that gets discussed at length by multiple involved parties and then locked in for years.

By contrast the barristers' route still requires academic study of specific areas of Law. And given how Law is built on statutes and cases, not just theory, then short of a radical overhaul of the route to something similar to the SQE, it's hard to argue that study of some core legal subjects isn't necessary. But it must also be acknowledged that the academic stage is only part of the route to becoming a barrister and some of the more practical areas may be better left to the vocational stage with the Bar [Whatever Middle Words Are Used This Week] Course.

Most of the current seven seem obvious choices even if not every lawyer will work with every single one in their career. For example, many lawyers may never do anything with Criminal Law but will need to at least recognise it and direct enquirers. The one which does stand out as the most obvious choice to drop is European Union Law, but that's very much a debate in its own right. Evidence Law is compulsory for prospective barristers and solicitors in Northern Ireland but may be a little too niche to add as a compulsory subject overall or else it might be best left to the vocational stage.

But are there other areas of Law that should be compulsory as well? Here it gets into the risk of picking favourites and there's the overall question of just how much a degree can take, especially if each compulsory subject has 30 credits and then there also has to be provision for basics like legal skills, the legal system and so forth that will also take up credits. Add too many subjects and there's a risk the degree becomes homogenised with very little space for options that allow students to pursue their own interests and academics to continue exploring particular fields. Alternatively, the number of credits and time devoted to each subject could contract to the point of barely skimming the surface.

Many countries have the same concept of an official list of subjects a student must have studied in order to qualify as a lawyer. Looking around requirements in other countries some patterns quickly emerge. Some countries do not separate out Contract Law and Tort Law. Some have Constitutional Law and Administrative Law as separate concepts and subjects. Equity & Trusts Law is generally a common law affair and this translates into the curriculums in various jurisdictions. And whilst EU Law appears to be compulsory in some non EU member countries (e.g. Norway), this is mainly down to particular ties and it's optional if offered at all in the rest of the world.

Common law countries, usually those with historic ties to the United Kingdom (not all are in the Commonwealth), tend to require students to study Administrative, Constitutional, Contract, Criminal, Equity & Trusts, Property and Tort Law, a very similar list to the Foundations though what is listed as Public Law here in the UK is often separated out. Civil law countries tend to structure things differently, usually into groups like Civil Law, Criminal Law and Public Law. But some countries have additional subjects as well.

As an example, Australia has what is known as the "Priestley 11", (named after Lancelot John Priestley who was the chair of the Law Admissions Consultative Committee (LACC) when these were set down). The eleven compulsory subjects are:

• Administrative Law
• Civil Dispute Resolution
• Company Law
• Contracts
• Criminal Law and Procedure
• Equity
• Ethics and Professional Responsibility
• Evidence
• Federal and State Constitutional Law
• Property
• Torts

(It should be noted that law degrees traditionally either last longer or are more intensely packed in Australia than here.)

It would be wrong to make a subject compulsory simple because of how things are done in other countries. And there's also a risk of getting into debate about the relative importance of individual areas of Law to practice - is Company Law more commonly used than, say, Family Law? But there are some interesting entries on this list. And there's another example of Evidence Law being compulsory.

Courses like Ethics, Procedure and Civil Dispute Resolution can be done in a Law degree but are probably more appropriate for the vocational stage of training than the academic. Otherwise, we have another example of the strong similarity of courses around the globe.

Overall, it seems that most of the Foundations are considered essential not just here but across the common law world. It's hard to see how most of them could not be included in a basic standard law degree. There may be scope for refinement around the edges but given the current degree lengths it would be difficult to add too many more without either contracting the number of credits on each or over homogenising the degree at the expense of options. For now, it seems that the Foundations of Legal Knowledge are here to stay.

(Photograph my own.)