The solicitors' profession will score another spectacular own goal with the current review of the training regime.

The old Law Society finals exam had its faults. The rote learning aspect was off-putting for some - as was the fact that some students, whose parents bought them places at Oxbridge or redbrick colleges, failed.


However, one must agree that they were taught at the four Colleges of Law or eight polytechnics. They were taught by competent and experienced practitioners who could adept the core notes or add to them.


Those that had the more competent practitioners teaching the students had the higher pass rates. There was not the financial pressure to pass poor students. The exams were quick and comparatively cheap and could be retaken.


Perhaps most importantly, the competent student and aspiring trainee left with a core and concise set of notes that it only required practice to apply, which was usually experienced immediately or after some intermediate relevant employment. The exam committee that met at the Law Society to assess the marking of the papers and representations seemed to know its job.


I recall that many training principals who knew where they stood with these exams were incredulous therefore when what appeared to be any institution could apply to teach the legal practice course. Quite why they needed to incorporate 'library exercises' that should have been taught in undergraduate study, was an enigma, as was the fact that at least one new 'university' had a pass rate that doubled over the course of the year (I have no doubt this was not because the students became 100% more intelligent over that period and more to do with the fact that open-book learning made it easier to 'modularise' the course).


But I can see no harm in the current debate. We are at present seen as a laughing stock of the professions after certain high-profile litigation and media interest. What more harm can another comedy sketch do?


Peter Balchin, Alistairs, Bristol