Common vocational training for solicitors and barristers is an issue that will not go away, however much the legal establishment -- scared of the wider implications for fusion -- may wish it would.In 1971, the last time a full-scale review of legal education took place, the then Mr Justice Ormrod recommended it.

Neither side of the profession was interested.But with last week's consultative report of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct (ACLEC) again advocating joint training (see [1996] Gazette, 24 April, 1), it is back on top of the agenda (see box).ACLEC sees four main advantages to common education: students would not have to make premature career choices; there would be savin gs in the cost of legal education and training because of the overlap between the two branches; it would improve mutual understanding between solicitors and barristers; and it would help develop common ethical and professional standards.It is an idea the Bar has always opposed.

'The scope for commonality in legal training will always be limited because the skills of a top class court advocate are different from those of a good office solicitor,' says a Bar spokesman.

It is never too soon to decide which career path you want to take, he adds.By contrast, John Randall, the Law Society's director of professional standards and development, says the Society sees much scope for common training.

It will happen anyway, he explains, as the Bar vocational course is to be taught at the same institutions as the legal practice course from 1997/98.

'We are likely to see the natural emergence of common and complementary teaching,' he says.

Simon Baker, chairman of the Society's training committee, adds that the committee would also favour more common training.Professor Nigel Savage, the in-coming chief executive of the College of Law, speaking in a personal capacity, also welcomes joint vocational training.

'They're all lawyers,' he says.

'Barristers and solicitors will have to work together and learn each other's roles.

It's better if they learn this early on.'And, as Mark Dillon, chairman of the Trainee Solicitors Group, points out, higher rights of audience for solicitors mean that common training is even more appropriate.

'Many skills are shared,' he asserts.However, Mr Savage is otherwise less than impressed with the ACLEC report.

'It's written by academics for academics and is not terribly sensitive to the profession,' he says.

The new exit point following the common training period, he adds, is an example of this.

ACLEC should have looked at what an employer would need from a student and then worked back to the qualification, as national vocational qualifications do.

ACLEC has not done this.Mr Randall finds many good points in the report but singles out some areas of concern.

He echoes a criticism by the Bar about the freedom in relation to course content ACLEC proposes giving to degree providers.

His concern is that students may not grasp basic legal principles.

If the profession is not given some control over course content, Mr Randall warns, then the case for pre-entry tests to vocational courses will be strong.Both the Law Society and the Bar disagree with ACLEC's proposal to remove quality control of vocational courses at publicly funded institutions from the profession, handing it instead to a new assessment body.The Bar spokesman says: 'An integral part of being a profession is regulating your own affairs, including training.' Mr Savage is even more concerned.

'Where does that leave the College of Law and Inns of Court School of Law, which are not publicly funded?' he asks.Mr Randall is also concerned about how the ACLEC model, which he believes would be more expensive than the present one, would be funded.Most commentators seem open to cutting the length of training contracts.

After all, says Mr Randall, there is nothing sacrosanct about two years.

'We need to look at what a person needs to do to be competent at his job,' he argues.

Mr Dillon says he would want to see any change made as part of a package of integrated training, but is not opposed in principle.If common vocational training is a step towards fusion of the two sides of the profession, then it is a small step.

The number of judges and barristers on A CLEC make it an unlikely agenda for the committee.

And the Bar itself seems unconcerned.Comparing this small step towards fusion with Neil Armstrong's small step on the moon in 1969, the Bar spokesman recalls how many thought the latter would lead to people walking on the surface on Jupiter.

'But that's still a long way down the road as well,' he points out.ACLEC BLUEPRINTACLEC's vision of the law graduate's usual route to qualifying as a solicitor:--qualifying degree, at least two thirds of which is full-time legal study (currently one half must be).

Current minimum specified content replaced by statement of goals to provide a basis for course design and assessment;--15-18 week common professional legal studies course for all students, leading to a licentiate in professional legal studies.

Students can leave at this point as legal consultants;--six-month period of in-service training at an approved practice setting, including but not limited to solicitors' offices and barristers' chambers, where a significant part of the work has a legal content;--15-18 week legal practice course.

This can be done before the in-service training;--training contract lasting no more than 12 months, and possibly just six.