Gloss to the judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) of 6 May 2021, II GSK 1057/20, is another voice in the debate on the quality of training for young lawyers. The authors considered the judgment to be an obstacle to the formulation of general theses relating to the legal training and vocational training of trainees attorney-at-law and their impact on the quality of the services they provide in the future. The role of the National Bar of Attorneys-at-Law is to ensure the proper exercise of those professions in the public interest and for the protection of the public interest. The training of young lawyers therefore affects not only the provision of legal services to different actors, but also the need to safeguard the public interest. In the glossed judgement the Court rightly pointed out that the result of the examination must correspond to the level of legal training. However, it went beyond the scope of the decisions on the results of the examinations, which are laid down in a regulation according to which the administrative courts do not review the marks awarded by the examiners, but the result of the examinations based on them. A divergent, inappropriate judgement by the SAC could lead to a five-instance trial. The SAC has no power to comment on the content of the appraisals, which would require an appropriate legal definition of the criteria for the submission of the individual appraisals, which would appear to be impossible in the context of expert appraisals.

Gloss to the judgement of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) of 6 May 2021, II GSK 1057/20, is another voice in the debate on the quality of training for young lawyers. The authors considered the judgment to be an obstacle to the formulation of general theses relating to the legal training and vocational training of trainees attorney-at-law and their impact on the quality of the services they provide in the future. The role of the National Bar of Attorneys-at-Law is to ensure the proper exercise of those professions in the public interest and for the protection of the public interest. The training of young lawyers therefore affects not only the provision of legal services to different actors, but also the need to safeguard the public interest. In the glossed judgement the Court rightly pointed out that the result of the examination must correspond to the level of legal training. However, it went beyond the scope of the decisions on the results of the examinations, which are laid down in a regulation according to which the administrative courts do not review the marks awarded by the examiners, but the result of the examinations based on them. A divergent, inappropriate judgement by the SAC could lead to a five-instance trial. The SAC has no power to comment on the content of the appraisals, which would require an appropriate legal definition of the criteria for the submission of the individual appraisals, which would appear to be impossible in the context of expert appraisals.