How we're learning about the Justice First Fellowship

In spring 2025, LEF brought me in as Learning Partner to the Justice First Fellowship (JFF), their programme which funds training contracts for aspiring social justice lawyers, delivered through host organisations working in areas such as housing, immigration and welfare.

JFF has just reached its ten-year anniversary, sadly a point at which many of the problems it aims to address have worsened and new ones have emerged. The programme was originally designed against a backdrop of government austerity; the current context adds hostile political rhetoric toward migrants and asylum seekers, safety concerns for social justice lawyers, changes to the qualification route and more. There are opportunities as well, so it’s a good time to reflect on what JFF has become and what it needs to do next.

My role is to help LEF understand what it is learning about JFF as it delivers it, rather than a more traditional periodic audit. Below, I reflect on some key elements of this first year.

The Fellow Development Group (FDG) – an idea that predated my arrival – is a forum of up to 10 current fellows and alumni, created in response to requests for more involvement in shaping the programme. Its role is to provide feedback and advice to LEF, and to act as a bridge between LEF, host organisations and fellows. I was asked to help establish its terms of reference and facilitate meetings throughout the year.

LEF wanted the space to be useful without compromising its independence by being overly directive. My role meant I could sit somewhere between LEF and the FDG, while making it clear that I also have a relationship with LEF – including the fact that they’re paying me. 

Led by the FDG themselves, we agreed what the group was for and how it would work, including as a route for fellows to raise concerns and for LEF to ask questions. 

While the programme is highly valued, fellows and alumni also have clear feedback. Inconsistency in fellows’ experiences with hosts came through strongly. It’s a live question for LEF too: whether that inconsistency is a weakness in the JFF model, or the normal result of partnering with organisations with varied cultures and resources.

Either way, it is the kind of issue where a learning partner can bring together different perspectives and move the conversation from ​“this is a problem” to ​“what, realistically, can LEF do about it?” Good learning doesn’t only identify problems and responses; sometimes it creates clearer shared understandings of a programme and its boundaries. I’ve also worked with LEF to introduce more of a ​“you said, we did” approach across JFF, so fellows have a clear sense of what action is being taken and why.

Another project was refreshing JFF’s Theory of Change, which sets out how the programme thinks change will happen: the problem it is responding to, what it plans to do, expected results, and the relevant assumptions.

There were open questions about the training LEF provides around the placement, the kind of lawyer JFF wants to create, accountability to communities, and what happens as fellows move from training into qualification.

That post-qualification transition, in particular, is now much clearer in the Theory of Change, in direct response to issues raised by the FDG. Fellows described a bottleneck: hosts cannot always retain them, roles elsewhere may be short-term, and some people feel cast adrift once the fellowship ends. This is an area LEF is working on improving, including with additional training and support. 

It was particularly useful that LEF was willing to surface disagreement rather than conceal it. I consulted with staff, fellows, alumni and hosts, and LEF was more than happy for views to be shared between these groups. This revealed real disagreements and differences in understanding of what JFF is trying to achieve and LEF’s role in the programme. Having a longer-term learning partner allows those conversations to develop, producing a collective Theory of Change that resolves tensions as much as possible. 

Capacity for learning is as much about resourcing as willingness, so I’m pleased to be with LEF for another year. 

But bringing in a learning partner is more than outsourcing learning. It means developing habits and systems that make learning possible without the consultant: clear questions, proportionate tools, regular spaces to make sense of what is being heard, and clarity about next steps.

Much of this first year has therefore been about taking stock. I reviewed LEF’s current JFF learning approach and developed a ​‘learning map’: what each learning process is for, whether it is needed and how information is being used. The aim was to make a more usable learning system with more space for interpretation and action.

I think that’s where the fair test of a learning partnership sits. If LEF didn’t continue with a consultant learning partner, would it have genuinely institutionalised those rhythms of learning and reflection? 

And if there is value in retaining a learning partner, that isn’t a failure of capacity building. An external voice can bring challenge, fresh understanding and a degree of accountability that is difficult to reproduce from inside an organisation.