Asked for her view of the future for the Law Society's training directorate, the training manager of one City firm was, at least, succinct: 'none'.

Her opinion will be given due weight by the training committee as it proceeds with a review of the training role of the Society.Perhaps unsurprisingly, consideration of the way forward for education and training raises three issues that are relevant to the development of the Law Society as a whole: strategy, specialisation and regulation.The greatest of these is strategy.

Once upon a time, the Law Society set its own entry examinations.

In consequence, Alexandra Palace and Olympia in London have a special place in the hearts of older practitioners.

Now, course providers run their own examinations and the Society's role is to police them at one remove through a sophisticated apparatus of validation and monitoring.

On this basic work for the profession, other functions have grown, like Topsy.The Society's training role screams out for the formulation of a coherent strategy with clarified objectives.

There are a number of ways in which this might be developed.

An interesting approach is to go through the process of identifying the training and development needs throughout a solicitor's career, from aspiring sixth-former to retirement.

As a knowledge-based industry, the need for investment in training by the legal profession should meet with little argument.

The more difficult issue is the job of the professional body, rather than that of individual members of the profession.

A complication is that different practitioners probably have different requirements of the Society.

Many large practices are already investing much more thought, time and money in training than a regulatory body could ever mandate.A focus on the demands of current -- and aspirant -- members of the profession needs to be supplemented by an analysis of the external environment.

We must puzzle through as best we can the way in which the profession will change.

For example, everyone agrees that new technology will revolutionise the workplace.

Gurus such as Richard Susskind argue that cyberspace will largely replace office space.

Well, is that true? If it is even remotely possible, we must be working out what is likely to happen and training new entrants to the profession accordingly.Underlying any discussion of entry into the profession must be a continuing commitment to maintaining access on the basis of ability and aptitude not wealth and contacts.

The ever-increasing debt load of students, combined with the unavoidable limitations of the market, will tend to narrow entry to the profession just when higher education is expanding to include much wider groups within society.

How can we maximise our role as an open and accessible profession in such difficult times?The second major issue is that of the growing specialisation of what has, until recently and with the exception of a few commercial mega-firms, been a largely generalist profession.

At an organisational level, this raises the issue of whether the Law Society should set up specialist sections.

In rela tion to training, questions arise over the future of the specialist panels.

These are now being set up at speed.

They are good marketing; they promote the public interest; they maintain self-regulation in the face of potential attacks from bodies such as the Legal Aid Board or the Home Office.

But should they develop into something more, without prejudice to final decisions on sections? For example, could we give panel-members more ownership of the panels by encouraging more participation in standards? Or should they stay as they are?The third issue relates to regulatory style.

Could we do more to move from regulation to facilitation? There is an irreducible amount of the former.

The profession, after all, is probably rather keen on high standards of entry.

On the other hand, there is a certain amount of whinging about the extension of continuing professional development (CPD).

Politically, the Society would be in difficulties if it changed the CPD requirements too soon after 1 November 1998, when all solicitors come within their scope.

But should we develop a strategy for a loosening of the rules once the profession has shown its acceptance of the need for continuing training and lifelong learning? Should we do more to suggest the type of training, particularly that newly qualified solicitors might require, for example in ethics? Might we do more to target help to solicitors in difficulties with the management of their practices?The task that brings all these questions to a head is formulating a statement of purpose.

The current formulation is that the training directorate should be the standard bearer of training and development.

However, this focuses more on declamation than explanation.

Better might be something like 'to ensure, through appropriate training and other development, that solicitors thrive as an independent, open and accessible profession in a changing and challenging environment'.A small prize awaits anyone who sends to the training directorate at Redditch, a mission statement ultimately accepted by the training committee.

A warm welcome awaits contributions to discussion of the above or other issues.

Professional courtesy will be extended to anyone wishing to agree that the Society's training function should be removed in its entirety.