The Brief:
NSW Admissions Board says PLT is “no longer fit for purpose”.
Grads call it costly, duplicative and light on practical skills.
The Legal Profession Admission Board of NSW has dropped a reform blueprint for Practical Legal Training after a sweeping review of costs, quality and relevance.
And things aren’t looking good for PLT providers.
The review, led by Chief Justice Andrew Bell alongside Justices Tony Payne and Jeremy Kirk and Professor Michael Quinlan, found that current PLT delivery is “no longer fit for purpose.”
Of more than 4,500 respondents surveyed, just 13% thought the course was reasonably priced, while fewer than half said it offered practical or career-relevant training.
At the centre of the shake-up is Bell’s proposal to:
Cut the PLT course from 3 months to as little as 3 weeks
Reduce the unpaid 75-day work experience requirement to 15 days
Allow law schools, firms or the Law Society to deliver the program
A move that would break the near-monopoly of the College of Law, which has amassed $180m in reserves.
The LPAB paper blames duplication with university coursework, unrealistic competency standards and an overemphasis on assessment for the PLT’s poor value.
The review flags a clear mismatch in competency standards. PLT was built for a time when new lawyers could practise unsupervised, but today’s fresh-eyed lawyers are restricted. Add to that the overlap between the Priestley 11 law school subjects and PLT units — forcing students to learn areas like conveyancing they’ll likely never touch —and frustration runs high.
It proposes shifting practical training into university degrees and early post-admission CPD, spreading costs and aligning learning with real workplace skills.
Bell said the aim is to “increase the quality and reduce the cost,” arguing that the system has become “burdensome” and is out of step with modern practice.
Consultation on the reforms closes 30 October, with a public session at the Banco Court on 5 November to debate the next steps.
Source: Discussion Paper