The one-size-fits-all model of training is under review as the Law Society tries to make legal education suit modern needs, writes Mark Smulian

Solicitors can end up working anywhere from the high street to high finance once they qualify, but almost all them will have done roughly the same training to get there.

The present route of degree, conversion course for non-law graduates, legal practice course and vocational training, was laid down in 1993, and is now undergoing a fundamental review by the Law Society that could lead to a wide variety of routes to qualification.

One reason for the review is that a coherent training system can easily become incoherent if it is subjected to piecemeal changes, as has happened to solicitors' training.

Opinions differ on whether incoherence has set in.

But those involved in preparing the ideas that will go out for consultation with the profession this autumn are broadly agreed that they want more flexibility and a greater emphasis on competencies.

The outcome of training will be the key issue - an outcome that ensures solicitors have a strong foundation of knowledge, skills and understanding on which they can draw throughout their careers.

The Law Society would not be prescriptive about how this outcome is achieved (see [2003] Gazette, 18 September, page 22).

Julie Swan, the Law Society's head of education and training, says one spur for the review is the changes that have taken place in higher education in general.

'It has changed with more part-time and mature students and further changes are likely with students paying more for their education and then perhaps expecting more of it,' she says.

The profession is also getting increasing numbers of entrants for whom becoming a solicitor is a second career and others who, for whatever reason, wish to combine study with vocational training.

At the same time, the government is promoting links between universities and businesses.

Ms Swan says there is 'a very strong move towards these closer relationships, with new types of degree and an emphasis on integrating employability skills into higher education'.

But 'flexible' does not mean 'easier'; there would still be a rigorous assessment of a trainee's fitness to become a solicitor.

Part of this could be a formal assessment to test their grasp of professional responsibilities, values and ethics as a final step before admission.

Ms Swan explains: 'It might be seen as a trade-off for flexibility.

If we are less prescriptive about the route, we will still want to be absolutely certain that everyone admitted is ready to practise.'

Another reason for the review is outside pressure on the profession to justify the way it conducts its qualification process, explains Richard Miller, director of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group and a Law Society Council member, who sat on the training framework review group.

He says: 'There is pressure from the Office of Fair Trading for competition in the professions, and that sees the training requirements as a potential barrier, so we have to be able to justify what is genuinely required of someone becoming a lawyer.'

Mr Miller sees the review's intention as a 'move away from a process that says "you've passed X, Y and Z therefore you are now ready", to one where we say what we expect a newly qualified lawyer to be able to do and know, and open up the process so that they will be able to arrive by different routes'.

Diversity is an element of this, as Mr Miller says evidence shows that ethnic minority students find it difficult to get beyond the legal practice course (LPC) and that therefore 'some very able students cannot qualify'.

He hopes the final stage of assessing ethics and values would be a checking-off process rather than a 'massive hurdle that lots of people might fail'.

There are some even more radical ideas around, though not as yet firmed up into proposals.

Another member of the review group, training consultant Sue Nelson, also a council member, wants a training system that produces 'the right students at the right price', and which is clear as to which entry restrictions are essential and which are not.

'The requirement to do two years of vocational training is a restrictive requirement as students also have to fund themselves through a year of the LPC - could we do it as they do in New Zealand, where there is a three-month course after which we qualify them?' she asks.

She also wonders whether the ban on setting up in business until three years after qualification still serves a useful purpose.

'We thought the time-based aspect of training was questionable,' Ms Nelson says.

'One can spend two years [working] and be very little further forward, or two years and advance a huge amount.

'We want a framework where people should demonstrate competence rather than just serve time.'

Ms Nelson also questions whether solicitors need to be kept away from the general public until after their LPC.

'Doctors will see real patients within a few months of starting training but for solicitors it is after the degree and LPC.

Is that a good thing? Would it be better if they were seeing clients earlier?'

Some students are now involved in pro bono advice centres set up by universities and LPC providers, and it is possible that under a new structure, this work could count towards qualification.

Ms Nelson also wants a final assessment of knowledge of ethics because she maintains that the rapid growth of the profession in the past decade means that 'we are not sure that people are being socialised into the profession, and need to ensure everyone knows ethics'.

One issue stressed by the group is that the Society should allow course providers to show flexibility and innovation, an example being Northumbria University's integrated degree and LPC course.

Others might be sandwich courses incorporating vocational training or part-time study using distance learning.

There is some caution about letting these thousand flowers bloom among the sector's academics.

Professor Peter Jones, dean of Nottingham Law School, complains that since the present system began in 1993, constant changes have meant that law schools have rarely been allowed to operate in the 'context of stability' that they should be able to expect.

'There must be a significant improvement in education if there are changes,' he says.

'All sorts of models are perfectly viable, but my view is that a law degree has to focus on providing students with a deep understanding of the fundamental principles of law.

That does not easily mix with the practical aspects of law which are taught in the LPC.'

He dislikes the idea of a further final qualification, because changes in student finance mean that young people are investing increasingly heavily in their education, and the LPC is already 'hardly an inexpensive course'.

Professor Jones says: 'If there were yet another test to take at the end of the training contract, I think that would be problematic and could create all sorts of difficulty.

'Extremely well-resourced law firms will spend what is needed to prepare their people properly, but smaller firms that do not have those resources might not be able to do that.'

Professor Nigel Savage, chief executive of the College of Law, thinks the Society has its priorities reversed.

Instead of looking at education and training, 'it should be setting out a strategy of where it is going, and then say to the education and training people "give us a policy that delivers that strategy"'.

Prof Savage argues that students should get some kind of professional status once they complete the LPC because that would enable them to work abroad.

'One size on the LPC no longer fits all,' he says.

'The Law Society has got to find a way to help providers to innovate and I think this is where they are getting to, but it is taking too long and they are making a meal of it.'

It will go on a bit longer too.

The return date for the consultation is likely to be in January, and to allow academics time to adapt their courses changes would not be implemented before autumn 2005 at the earliest.

By the time those students emerge as solicitors, it might be time for the next review.

Mark Smulian is a freelance journalist