As a radical overhaul of legal training is envisaged for 2006, Grania Langdon-down hears fears among lawyers that specialist courses will dilute the quality of common standards

The changes proposed in legal training are both 'revolutionary and evolutionary', according to former Law Society President Michael Mathews, who has just stepped down from Chancery Lane's training framework review group after chairing it since its inception three years ago.

But just how radical a change does the profession and those providing legal training want? And does the increasing specialisation of the legal practice course (LPC), with the recent announcements of a legal aid-based LPC and bespoke LPCs for three of the magic circle firms, spell the end of common training for solicitors?

Pressure is mounting on the review group, the new chairman of which will be announced shortly, to complete the task it started in 2001.

As the paper that went to the Law Society Council meeting earlier this month pointed out: 'There is a danger that interest in the review will be lost and that the credibility of the Law Society will suffer if progress is not made and reported quickly.'

The timetable is for further consultation over the summer and early autumn, with detailed recommendations by the end of the year on a framework based on the knowledge, understanding, skills and attributes that all solicitors should be able to demonstrate on day one of their admission to the roll, and on the possibility of a final pre-admission assessment.

The aim is for changes to be implemented by the start of the academic year in 2006, but the review group accepts that this is the 'most ambitious' timing.

Mr Mathews describes the proposals for reforming training as both revolutionary and evolutionary because, in practice, there will not be immediate radical change.

'Most people will still do a law degree, then something akin to the LPC, then something which might or might not be called a training contract.

What the proposals do is open up the possibility of people working out more innovatory and alternative pathways into the profession.

'However, all this will turn on the assessment process.

Any changes will stand or fall on that.

If the review group can't come up with a process which is sufficiently robust to allay any doubts about the quality of the training, then clearly it won't work.'

He says other areas, such as enabling the proposed students' learning log to be done in electronic form, still need work.

However, he says: 'The most difficult point to resolve will be the final assessment at the point of qualification.

It might relate only to ethics, values, conduct or be a bit broader, and it needs further thought.

'Someone described the current system as ending with a whimper rather than a bang.

I am not sure I want it to be a bang, but, as one who in the past has had to sign off people after they had completed their training contracts, I recognise that it is not a very meaningful moment.'

However, while the review rumbles on, the College of Law is pushing ahead with changes of its own.

The 'public legal services pathway' course - devised by the college and the Legal Services Commission - will be offered to students enrolling from September 2005.

The college is also working on 'firm-specific' courses for Linklaters, Allen & Overy and Clifford Chance from 2006, when the City LPC consortium of eight leading firms splits into two groups.

The other five - Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Herbert Smith, Lovells, Norton Rose and Slaughter and May - have chosen BPP as their exclusive course provider.

The college's chief executive, Professor Nigel Savage, says: 'When the LPC came in 11 years ago, there was still something of a general practice firm [in existence].

But since then, the concept of one size fitting all just doesn't work.

As the Gazette pointed out in its recent leader, what do the 1 million-a-year partner in the City and the legal aid practitioner scraping a living in north Wales have in common? The answer is that they both have practising certificates, but that is about it.

'However, the LPC has delivered consistent training across a range of providers and it has been well monitored - the Law Society can claim some credit for improving standards in training.

It would be a shame if the implications of the training review dismantle some of those improvements so that the LPC becomes, like the law degree, unregulated and set against some vague outcome statement with a final examination as a backstop to test whether students know anything about conduct or ethics.'

Professor Scott Slorach, the college's LPC director, does not believe anything is lost by earlier and greater specialisation of courses.

'The reason for doing this is so that students learn the relevant knowledge and skills in the context most appropriate to that which they will come across when they start practising.'

He says the key issue with the Law Society reforms is monitoring.

'It comes down to quality assurance procedures.

The greatest danger in terms of monitoring standards comes if you start chopping and changing methods by which students can qualify.'

Peter Crisp, chief executive of BPP, is also concerned.

He says: 'The proposed differing pathways into the profession could lead to variable standards, a lack of consistency and, worst of all, a loss of faith in the quality of training among the general public.

What might be better is to focus on improvements to the current courses, particularly the undergraduate law degree.'

Overall, he says: 'I am not of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" school - we do need to be reflective and constantly challenge ourselves, but I don't think there is evidence of any need for change - not for radical change anyway.

The review itself says the Law Society does not have any evidence that the current scheme is failing in any significant way.'

John Trotter, training partner at City firm Lovells, which is sticking with the City LPC, agrees.

'I don't think we need a more tailored course.

We have put a lot of work over the last five years into the City LPC, which has benefited everyone, not just our students.

I am sure there is still room to improve and refine it, but I don't think we have in mind very radical changes.'

While Mr Crisp maintains that the idea of a common training for solicitors is not splintering with the advance of specialist LPCs, he is concerned at the idea of firm-specific LPCs.

He says: 'I think training students so early on in exclusive groups is potentially unhealthy.

The five firms who stayed with us prefer their students to have a more rounded approach and to study in a supportive framework where they are able to make mistakes in front of their peers.

Can that be achieved if they are in a hothouse atmosphere?'

But Alison Beardsley, training principal and corporate partner with Allen & Overy, is quick to dispel the idea that its trainees will be in an 'Allen & Overy ghetto'.

She explains: 'Some students have been nervous that they would be hothoused with other Allen & Overy people and get a degree of unhealthy competition starting way too early.

But that is not what we are looking to do.

They will be studying at the College of Law, not in-house, and we want them to rub along with colleagues from other large and small firms to improve their networking skills, and to keep in touch with their peer group from university.'

She adds: 'But what we do want - and what we have wanted to do for the last ten years - is for them to have a greater depth and understanding of some of the fundamental areas which make up our business.

We want them to use practical examples of deals we have been involved in and get used to our standard form documentation, so it is less of a rude awakening when they make the transfer from student to paid employee.'

Prof Slorach agrees: 'These courses are no different to what business schools have been doing for years - customising MBAs to suit the needs of their clients' firms.

The issue is, are you more motivated because you are with your immediate peers and your future work colleagues?

'From the firms' perspective, the students are going to be better motivated because they can see the relevance of what they are learning, and can build up internal contacts and a support network.'

However, given bespoke courses need a critical mass of about 120 students, they are only ever likely to appeal to the biggest firms.

It has been reported that the College of Law is working on an LPC for US law firms, but Prof Savage dismisses the speculation as nonsense.

'Individually, US firms don't have the critical mass to sustain a separate LPC and we can service their needs through training programmes once people join them.

Where US firms do have problems is with brand recognition among students, so we are looking at ways of helping them recruit via the college.'

For Phil Knott, head of professional legal studies at Nottingham Law School, there is a risk that increasing specialisation will see an end to the idea of a common training.

'What it heralds is a move away from the idea of a generic qualification as a solicitor.

That may be inevitable as that is the way the profession is going, but my feeling is people will lose some of the breadth and roundedness that goes with being a newly qualified lawyer.'

He says the irony is that the people most able to exploit the training review proposals will be the largest law firms, 'which may not have been what the review was intended to achieve'.

And he warns: 'While the message may be that greater flexibility in how students qualify will help access, the danger is that if there are too many pathways, students won't know which ones firms find acceptable and they might find themselves down one which turns out to be a blind alley.'

Nicola Fitches, solicitor at Steeles in Norwich, is the chairwoman of the Trainee Solicitors Group.

She says the group supports the idea of flexible routes of entry into the profession.

However, given that the radical changes hinted at during the review's consultation have yet to happen, the group is concerned that courses that are too tailored may affect diversity and equality.

'Having one LPC is, at this stage, probably the best option as students gain a broad understanding of legal practice while the electives allow a certain amount of specialism,' she says.

For Prof Savage, one way of helping students would be to introduce a professional qualification, such as solicitors with no practising rights, after they complete the LPC.

He says: 'I have always advocated an interim qualification in the same way students finishing the bar vocational course can call themselves barristers at law.

It would be a recognisable qualification, particularly for those students doing the LPC without a training contract.

It would also make the LPC a more global qualification but there is no sign of any enthusiasm from the Law Society.'

Mr Mathews sees no value in this at the moment.

'I think it would prescribe the order in which trainees do things, which immediately cuts down the possibilities, such as sandwich courses.

However, it may be something to consider when we see how the new system works.'

Another question for the profession is whether there is any scope in the longer term for 'fused' training for barristers and solicitors.

Of course, Sir David Clementi's review of legal services may make this distinction irrelevant anyway.

But until then, neither Mr Knott nor Ms Fitches see any benefit in the two sides of the profession training together because, they say, the emphasis for barristers is inevitably focused on advocacy.

Mr Mathews favours as much common training as possible.

'I was interested to see in a bar discussion document on training that there is a considerable degree of similarity among the suggested outcomes.

But so long as we have a divided profession, there are bound to be differences at some point.'

Prof Savage is rather more caustic.

'It is a battle that is not worth fighting.

There is so much animosity and conflict underlying the relationship between the bar and the Law Society, it would be pointless to try.'

Grania Langdon-Down is a freelance journalist