Qualification Is Not the Same as Competence: Rethinking Legal Professional Regulation in Trinidad and Tobago

The Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago has recently voted to amend the Legal Profession Act (“LPA”) to remove the Legal Practice Course (LPC) as a pathway to qualification at the local Bar by the end of 2026. This decision sits uneasily beside the position of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which expressly provided for a managed transition period to 2032 when phasing out the LPC in favour of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE). ¹

The debate has largely centred on entry routes. Yet this moment invites a deeper, more consequential question:

Is qualification alone sufficient to protect the public interest over the course of a legal career?

Qualification vs Competence: A Structural Blind Spot

In Trinidad and Tobago, once admitted to practise, an attorney-at-law may remain on the Roll indefinitely, subject only to annual practising certificate requirements and disciplinary oversight. There is no structured system of re-assessment, no formal evaluation following extended absence from practice, and no statutory requirement for periodic recertification.

Continuing Professional Development (CPD) exists, but its regulatory emphasis has historically been on hours completed, not competence maintained. This mirrors an outdated regulatory philosophy: that attendance equates to proficiency.

Modern professional regulation increasingly rejects this assumption.

The International Shift: From CPD Hours to Continuing Competence

Across common law jurisdictions, regulators are moving away from rigid CPD hour-counting and towards outcomes-based continuing competence models.

England and Wales

Since 2016, the SRA has replaced prescriptive CPD hours with a Continuing Competence Framework, requiring solicitors to:

• reflect on their practice,

• identify learning needs,

• undertake targeted development, and

• demonstrate competence aligned with current standards.²

The focus is not how long you sit in a seminar, but whether you remain fit to practise.

Scotland

In Scotland, the position is even more explicit. Under the regulatory framework of the Law Society of Scotland, a solicitor who has not held a practising certificate for more than 13 months may be required to:

• satisfy the regulator of current competence,

• undergo additional scrutiny, and

• in some cases complete retraining before returning to practice.³

Extended absence is treated as a risk factor, not a neutral event.

Other Professions

This approach is not unique to law. Medicine, aviation, accounting, and engineering routinely impose:

• periodic recertification,

• revalidation after defined intervals (often five years), or

• mandatory reassessment following inactivity.

The underlying principle is simple: public-facing professions with high stakes demand continuous assurance of competence.

Why This Matters: Errors, Harm, and Public Confidence

Legal practice carries profound consequences. A single error can:

• deprive a client of liberty or property,

• collapse a commercial transaction,

• expose the State to significant liability, or

• permanently prejudice constitutional rights.

Local media regularly reports instances where basic procedural or substantive errors by legal practitioners have resulted in severe consequences for clients and institutions alike. These are often framed as isolated failures. In reality, they may point to a systemic regulatory gap.

Disciplinary systems are reactive. Competence frameworks are preventative.

The Unanswered Question in the Legal Profession Act

Notably, the current LPA is silent on:

• mandatory reassessment after prolonged absence from practice;

• structured competence review over a professional lifetime; and

• recertification aligned to evolving legal standards and procedures.

If the profession is prepared to reconsider how one enters practice, should it not also reconsider how one remains entitled to practise?

A Policy Conversation We Can No Longer Avoid

This is not an argument for punitive regulation or bureaucratic excess. It is an argument for proportionate, risk-based oversight aligned with international best practice.

At minimum, serious consideration should be given to:

• competence-based CPD models;

• enhanced scrutiny following extended inactivity;

• periodic recertification for long-standing practitioners; and

• statutory reform to reflect modern regulatory expectations.

If qualification pathways are being shortened or accelerated, post-qualification safeguards become more—not less—important.

Conclusion

The legal profession exists to serve the public interest. That duty does not end at admission to the Bar.

As Trinidad and Tobago modernises its qualification framework, it must confront an equally important reality: competence is not static, and regulation must reflect that truth.

References

1. Solicitors Regulation Authority, SQE: Transitional Arrangements (SRA, 2021).

2. Solicitors Regulation Authority, Continuing Competence (SRA, updated guidance).

3. Law Society of Scotland, Practising Certificate Regulations and Return to Practice Guidance.

4. Legal Profession Act, Chap 90:03 (Trinidad and Tobago).