As the dust settles on the training review, Phil Knott asks what has been achieved over the past four years, and what should happen next

Two strong themes emerged from the recent Law Society training framework review consultation. One was a desire to improve access to and flexibility in the qualification regime so long as standards are not compromised. The other was firm opposition to dismantling the current staged approach to qualification.


Unfortunately, a great deal of heat has been generated over whether these messages can ever be reconciled - does more open access depend implicitly on radical change? Several astute respondents argued that radical change would inhibit greater access.


Two examples may help. The first is that multiple pathways would lead to multi-tier training, with the self-supporting entrants opting for the cheapest route. This vulnerable group would then get the worst deal because the profession would lack confidence in the rigour of their training.


The second example is that increasingly onerous supervisory responsibilities would drive smaller law firms out of the trainee market. On both counts, the laudable aim of liberalising the training regime would in fact deny substantial numbers their opportunity to qualify as solicitors.


The counter argument is that a more evolutionary approach to change would in fact do a better job of improving access and diversity, and not at the expense of standards. Observing a general principle that simple solutions are usually the most effective, here is a three-point plan that could achieve broadly agreed objectives:


  • Remove some of the artificial rigidity of the legal practice course requirements. All the Law Society really needs to prescribe are clear outcomes, minimum acceptable study hours (equivalent to a post-graduate academic year), and minimum acceptable resources (especially staffing levels). Then let the providers and the profession design rigorous, innovative and flexible provision. This freedom would create a more competitive environment, which should in turn drive down costs.


  • Keep the two-year training contract, introduce a manageable portfolio requirement driven by the trainee, and develop a proper pre-qualification assessment to give real meaning to the point of admission.


  • Do it now. We would then have a coherent, flexible and cost-effective training framework that would remove the increasing blight that uncertainty is generating. There has been far too much rumination, and these changes could be in place for 2007 if we act immediately.



    • These suggestions might be relatively uncontroversial. But it is no bad thing to build on the strengths of a largely effective structure in a climate where the public is sceptical about standards. These proposals should not be viewed simply as an incremental staging post towards more radical change. For me, this is the destination - modifying the existing training structure would serve the profession and its entrants well in the 21st century.


    Although flexibility and access are important objectives, they should not be at the expense of consistently rigorous entry requirements.


    Phil Knott is professor of legal education at Nottingham Law School, and is a member of the Law Society's training framework review group