영국의 수습변호사 제도는, 사법시험 및 사법연수원 제도에 대한 근본적인 변혁을 앞두고 있 는 우리에게 적지 않은 시사점을 줄 것으로 예상한다. 영국의 법률가 양성 및 충원 과정은 일회성 국 가 시험(사법시험이나 변호사 자격시험)에 의존하는 대신, 법학 교육기관(법학부)에 대한 합리적인 외 부 검증 및 품질 관리를 통하여 교육 및 평가의 신뢰성을 담보하고, 이렇게 검증된 교육기관을 거쳐나 온 자들은 수습변호사로 2년간 근무하도록 함으로써, 법률의 이론적, 원리적 기초에 대한 교육은 대학 이 담당하고, 실무 훈련은 업계가 담당하는 분업 체제가 모범적으로 정착한 사례라 할 수 있다. 수습변호사 제도는 채용 주체 및 수습변호사 각자의 자기 이익(self interest)에 기초하여 그 얼개가 짜여져 있으므로, 진정한 의미의 실무 교육이 이루어질 수 있으며, 실무 훈련 과정을 시장에 방치한 미 국과는 달리 변호사의 전반적 품질관리에 획기적인 장점을 가질 수 있다. 또한 저렴한 연봉의 수습변호사를 full time 으로 고용할 수 있게 됨으로써, 채용 주체들은 상당한 가 격 경쟁력을 확보함은 물론, 사무실 운영의 능률을 높일 수 있고, 우리의 경우에는 변호사의 진출 영역 을 확대하여 법률 시장의 규모를 키우는 데 큰 도움이 될 수 있다. 무엇보다도, 수습변호사 제도는 변호사 배출 총 인원을 획일적 관료적 통제 기제(시험합격자 수에 대 한 제약)로 결정하는 것이 아니라, 채용 주체들의 채용 수요가 반영된 자연스러운 수급균형 조절을 통 하여 결정되도록 하는 것이라는 점에서, 여러 이익집단의 견해가 첨예하게 대립되어 교착 상태에 빠진 변호사 배출 총 인원 문제에 대한 해법의 실마리를 제공할 수 있다.

As the Korean legal profession is about to undergo fundamental changes in the bar examination and judicial training programme, it would be useful to study solicitors training contract in England and Wales. Instead of relying on a one-off, state-administered selection test, the education, training and recruitment of lawyers in England and Wales are carried out in a two-stage process where i) legal education is provided by undergraduate law faculties subject to a quality control mechanism designed to ensure a satisfactory level of academic grounding for the candidates; and ii) professional training is provided through the mechanism of training contract where solicitors’ firms and other organisations which have adequate resources and expertise undertake to provide such training. Training contract operates on the basis of self-interest of employers and those who seek to go into legal profession. The training is conducted on the basis of hands-on experience and genuine legal problems rather than hypothetical classroom examples. Unlike the United States where professional training is entirely left to the market and to individuals, the English system of professional training greatly contributes to quality assurance of new members of the legal profession. Moreover, as the relatively inexpensive trainee lawyers can be hired on a full-time basis, the employers can have considerable advantage in cost control and enhancement of productivity. Such a system, if introduced in Korea, can contribute to widen the scope of lawyers’ services. Since a wider range of employers, who have so far been unable to hire lawyers due to high level of expected salary, would then be able to hire trainee lawyers (and eventually, fully qualified lawyers), legal profession would provide a wider variety of services. The size of legal market will grow in consequence. Most of all, training contract is a discreet and gentle mechanism for regulating the size of supply and demand of newly qualified lawyers. Instead of a blunt, bureaucratic selection test which arbitrarily fixes the total number of candidates who are allowed to pass each year, the training contract can set the total annual number of newly qualified lawyers based on the actual, aggregate needs and demands of employers. This may well be a break-through in the current stalemate regarding the number of new lawyers annually allowed to qualify.

As the Korean legal profession is about to undergo fundamental changes in the bar examination and judicial training programme, it would be useful to study solicitors training contract in England and Wales. Instead of relying on a one-off, state-administered selection test, the education, training and recruitment of lawyers in England and Wales are carried out in a two-stage process where i) legal education is provided by undergraduate law faculties subject to a quality control mechanism designed to ensure a satisfactory level of academic grounding for the candidates; and ii) professional training is provided through the mechanism of training contract where solicitors’ firms and other organisations which have adequate resources and expertise undertake to provide such training. Training contract operates on the basis of self-interest of employers and those who seek to go into legal profession. The training is conducted on the basis of hands-on experience and genuine legal problems rather than hypothetical classroom examples. Unlike the United States where professional training is entirely left to the market and to individuals, the English system of professional training greatly contributes to quality assurance of new members of the legal profession. Moreover, as the relatively inexpensive trainee lawyers can be hired on a full-time basis, the employers can have considerable advantage in cost control and enhancement of productivity. Such a system, if introduced in Korea, can contribute to widen the scope of lawyers’ services. Since a wider range of employers, who have so far been unable to hire lawyers due to high level of expected salary, would then be able to hire trainee lawyers (and eventually, fully qualified lawyers), legal profession would provide a wider variety of services. The size of legal market will grow in consequence. Most of all, training contract is a discreet and gentle mechanism for regulating the size of supply and demand of newly qualified lawyers. Instead of a blunt, bureaucratic selection test which arbitrarily fixes the total number of candidates who are allowed to pass each year, the training contract can set the total annual number of newly qualified lawyers based on the actual, aggregate needs and demands of employers. This may well be a break-through in the current stalemate regarding the number of new lawyers annually allowed to qualify.

, , , , , , , , ,

trainee solicitors, vocational training, training contract, law school reform, recruitment of lawyers, bar examination, size of newly qualified lawyers, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Korean Bar Association