Found this in the news section over at lawcareers.net

The Law Society has warned employers against using social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace to vet job candidates, because doing so could lead to discrimination claims. The advice was issued as part of the society’s nationwide information campaign “Help, I need somebody”, which encouraged consumers to seek legal advice from a solicitor when necessary. The Employment Practices Data Protection Code allows vetting where there is a significant risk involved to the employer, clients, customers or others; but employers should not rely on information gleaned from the sites, as it could be unreliable.

Law Society Employment Law Committee chair John Morris said: “Using these sites to canvass more information about an employee or an interview candidate is potentially risky for an employer. For example, it is possible to obtain information about a person’s sexual orientation or religious beliefs that can impact or is perceived to impact on the decision made to recruit or not recruit that person – this can lead to discrimination claims.”

The society also warned employees of the risk of befriending employers on social networking sites and urged people to use the privacy settings available.

Interesting how the Law Society have actually condemned using Facebook. I always thought it would be good to find out about a person through social networking sites before employing them. However the down side to this is that certain private information will be available and may be used against you say at interview.

For those who still opt into having a fully open and viewable profile; don’t do it! It is best to keep your profile private, for more than one reason. It would however be interesting to see how a discrimination claim would be brought if based solely on social networking sites where you can remove certain information in an instant.

The College of Law’s Legal Services Policy Institute has proposed a somewhat interesting take on qualifying to be a Solicitor.

The proposal states that once a student completes the LPC they are a qualified solicitor. However the only work they will be able to do is ‘unreserved legal activities such as transactional work or employment advice.’ Basically a glorified paralegal role. If a ‘qualified solicitor’ would then want rights of audience then they would have to complete further training at a law firm similar to that of the current training contract.

Although this sounds good on paper, it would then make it much more easier to become a qualified solicitor, yet you wouldn’t quite be a full qualified solicitor, as you would have no rights of audience. The profession would then be not as somewhat special as it is now. Would this mean that any tom, dick and harry would then qualify once they pass the LPC?

Don’t get me wrong as I really wish the process in qualifying as a solicitor was a lot easier but I would rather be a fully qualified solicitor, not just one that can do the paperwork. I mean I do the paperwork now! It would also possibly mean that the older generation will be the one’s attending court as the younger generation wouldn’t have a clue unless they did the further training. But on the other hand so many people like myself could be qualified in an instant!

Another thing is that would this mean the end of paralegals and legal executives? They are somewhat similar roles to the proposed changes.

I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how far this goes!!

Found here!

Written in association with no win no fee lawyers