School of hard knocks - legal education's controversies under review

In the wake of controversies and fears over a glut of aspiring lawyers, a hugely complex review of legal education has been launched. Friederike Heine and Alex Novarese assess the task at hand

By wide agreement, when Mr Justice Ormrod was appointed in 1967 to examine the state of legal education, he had his work cut out. Ormrod's remit was to tackle the conflicting demands made of educating lawyers, which meant reconciling the agenda of the universities - which were intent on maintaining law as a 'learned' career - with those of the profession, which was pressing regulators for a greater emphasis on vocational training. Law, the subsequent report stated, "had emerged from the chrysalis of apprenticeship but had not yet discovered satisfactory alternative ways of developing wings".

More than four decades on, the regime for educating lawyers faces remarkably similar tensions. "One might say the questions posed by Ormrod are still unanswered, or at least they remain just as applicable," says Crispin Passmore, director of strategy at the Legal Services Board (LSB).

As such there is intense interest in the wide-ranging review of education and training that was announced in November by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the Bar Standards Board (BSB) and the Institute of Legal Executives' (ILEX) Professional Standards (IPS), the three main legal regulators for England and Wales.

In the wake of the announcement, many prominent figures in the profession and legal education community made public calls for reform. LSB chair David Edmonds highlighted the desirability of a shorter law degree and more work-based learning; others called for the introduction of aptitude tests to regulate entry into the profession; and the Law Society published a paper on the importance of integrating ethics into the training of solicitors.

Both law firms and law schools have called for more prescriptive regulation of the qualifying law degree, which must be passed before undertaking postgraduate training, to ensure that it better prepares students for the vocational stages of legal training. Many, of course, contend that legal education is too rigid given the death of the general practitioner and the increasing divergence of different branches of the profession.

There is little doubt that many universities are wary of the increasing influence of City law firms on the profession and the commercialisation of law in general. The underlying tension between commercial interests and academic views of what it means to be a lawyer has, if anything, become more pronounced in recent years as City law firms have transformed themselves into global businesses.

But there are arguably three additional factors that have raised the stakes regarding the review, which is expected to produce significant policy findings at various points before its conclusion in two years' time. The first is the full implementation later this year of the Legal Services Act (LSA), which many view as fundamentally redefining what it means to be a lawyer.

"Education is an important tool to get a handle on the profession, and the regulators are seizing their chance," says the College of Law chief executive Nigel Savage (pictured). "Legal education needs to prepare aspiring solicitors and barristers for the new world of alternative business structures (ABSs) and Tesco law."

The second is the expansion and increasingly commercial outlook of the largest vocational law schools like the College of Law and BPP Law School, which some see as an ambivalent influence on the profession. And, third, the initiative comes against the wider backdrop of a huge shake-up in university funding in the wake of last year's Browne review, which is controversially set to allow universities to charge far higher tuition fees.

Throw in the impact of the prolonged slump in Western economies, which has resulted in fewer training contracts on offer, and rising concerns regarding social mobility in the legal profession, and it is easy to see why many consider the review as urgently needed.

Yet belief that the review is necessary is likely to be one of the few areas of common ground in a process that will have to reconcile widely-diverging interests. In addition, the review itself will be conducted by three different bodies that will also have to consult with the LSB, the oversight body created under the LSA.

Understandably, many are cynical about whether the initiative can achieve substantial reform in a reasonable timeframe, let alone a package that is successful and achieves widespread support.

Three's company

Exactly what form the proposed review is likely to take is as yet unclear, though by common consent its breadth will be extremely wide-ranging. The process is expected to encompass the pathways to qualification, continuing professional development (CPD) requirements and the regulation of legal education providers.

A key aim will also be to assess whether the current framework will still be relevant when the LSA is fully implemented to allow ABSs this October. According to the SRA, the review - which is likely to take up to two years - will run parallel to the specific training-related research currently underway. The SRA says it will continue its current review of training contract policy through its worked-based learning pilot and will also embark on a CPD review over the next 12 months.

The three regulators are putting the research out to tender and are expecting to have appointed a team of professional researchers by the end of February. The bodies also plan to appoint a 'stakeholder group', which will consist of key figures from the profession and the legal education sector.

The LSB will ultimately be responsible for passing major policy revisions. The LSB's Passmore comments: "We will work closely with approved regulators to ensure that our expectations and criteria for approving those changes are based upon evidence and support the delivery of the regulatory objectives set out in the LSA. The regulators are expected to manage their own governance arrangements for the review but we would be surprised if they did not appoint either an independent chair or external review group to assist."

One complication is that the SRA is expecting to be making some policy changes to the education market after six to eight months due to existing initiatives. "It is likely that the first things we will tackle actively will be to tighten up CPD and work-based learning, which is crucial to maintaining levels of competence within the legal sector," says SRA chief executive Antony Townsend.

Indeed, recent years have already seen substantial changes to the vocational framework, thanks to the development of tailored Legal Practice Courses (LPCs), the introduction of a new qualification regime for foreign lawyers and the recent introduction of fast-track LPCs (see box, page 10).

In addition, the SRA and BSB are currently wrestling with myriad policy reviews directly linked to the introduction of the LSA, which is often compared to the 'Big Bang' deregulation of UK financial services in the 1980s. Such initiatives include the SRA's commitment to overhaul its entire regulatory framework in favour of what it dubs 'outcomes-focused regulation', and its drive to build a new regulatory team specifically tailored to large commercial law firms.

And, of course, the dynamics will be further complicated by the gap between the regulatory and representative arms of the profession, which creates even more stakeholders and agendas to manage. As such, the process will have to contend with not only the work of the SRA, BSB and IPS but also the stances of their linked representative arms the Law Society, Bar Council and ILEX.

With so many balls to juggle, many express doubts as to the efficiency of the planned review, not only because similar reviews in recent years have failed to result in major policy changes, but also because there are multiple related strands of research currently underway that will have to be integrated into the review. Many are also sceptical of whether the bodies can complete the process in the 24-month timeframe.

Inevitably, the process will be shaped by the differing agendas of the three regulators. There does, however, appear to be consensus that stress-testing the current regime for the introduction of the LSA is a core aim.

Valerie Shrimplin, the BSB's head of education, comments: "We are primarily interested in how the LSA might impact on legal education in the long term. We have conducted research on the topic in the past and have come to the conclusion that at present it is too early to tell - the review may well not be able to come to any firm conclusions before the LSA is actually implemented."

IPS chief executive Ian Watson comments: "The ILEX route is very open and a route to the profession that encourages social mobility - we would therefore not want to see that compromised. Ultimately we want consumers to be able to access the legal services they want and need at a price they can afford. Ultimately the review should be judged by whether it contributes to the future provision of legal services, which are of a good, proportionate standard and appropriate to the needs of the market place and consumer."

A full agenda

If managing the logistics of the review will be difficult, the sheer range of ground to cover will make the process that much more challenging. Arguably, the single controversy that most directly led to the review was the increasing unease regarding what many view as a huge mismatch between those training to be lawyers and the number of training contracts and pupillages available.

In short, many believe that far too many candidates that have little or no chance of becoming a lawyer are undergoing expensive vocational training, which at leading institutions currently costs around £12,500 for the one-year LPC for solicitors and more than £14,000 for the equivalent Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) for the Bar. The providers of the LPC and BPTC come in for particular criticism on this front, with some arguing that they fail to adequately warn students how competitive the profession is.

"Are we seeing fair competition? BPP will send out its glossy brochures that will trump and push institutions out of the market, such as Northumbria, which has a good, if not excellent, standard of LPC," says Kevin Poulter, a former executive committee member of the Law Society's Junior Lawyer Division.

While some senior figures fret that aspiring lawyers are being lured to the profession on a false prospectus, many junior solicitors and barristers struggling to find work in the current market bitterly resent the continued influx at a time when jobs are scarce.

Such issues have become heightened over the last two years in the wake of the banking crisis as law firms cut back the number of training contracts they offer. Law Society figures show that the number of training contracts being offered shrunk from a boom-time level of 6,000-6,300 a year to a current estimate of below 5,000. The number of training contracts is well short of those sitting the LPC, which has a pass rate of around 75%. In the 2008-09 year, 9,337 students enrolled for the LPC. The situation is considerably more acute at the Bar where around 1,400 BPTC graduates compete for just 500 pupillages annually.

Yet the major law schools like the College of Law and BPP had already attracted a good deal of scrutiny before the recession, with critics arguing they have exploited the drawing power of law as a career to charge high fees to those with little chance of becoming a lawyer.

These two institutions in particular have also become lightning rods for criticism over the last decade, given their increasing dominance of the upper end of the commercial market, underlined by the string of exclusive deals they have signed with major law firms (see box, below). An early sign of this was the griping that met the bestowment to BPP of degree-awarding powers in 2007. BPP was criticised again in 2009 when it over-subscribed a Bar Vocational Course.

But 2010 arguably saw greater controversy when the £440,000 pay package of the College of Law chief executive Nigel Savage was published. Likewise, BPP's announcement in October that it was to open three new regional branches offering vocational law training was criticised given the dearth of training contracts currently on offer, even though the school is not planning to expand nationally the number on its law student roll.

BPP chief executive Peter Crisp responds: "Students need to take responsibility for researching the state of the legal market and make their own decisions. Although BPP, for example, explicitly provides information about the number of training contracts and the challenges facing those wanting to enter the legal profession at open days and other students events, it is not the role of an education provider to pass judgement as to whether an aspiring solicitor will succeed in gaining a training contract. On what basis could we make that judgement? To survive in the current climate, LPC providers need to be commercial and focused on the student experience."

A more recent issue is the looming shake-up of university funding in the wake of the Browne review, which was issued in October 2010. The coalition Government has made it clear that it will abolish the £3,290 cap on tuition fees that universities currently charge, allowing institutions to charge up to £9,000 a year.

The shake-up has been met with ambivalence by the legal profession, even by the commercial law firms that stand to gain the most as the leading universities from which they largely recruit will almost certainly be able to charge the highest fees.

Such concerns tap into the growing unease about the lack of social mobility in the legal profession in recent years. A survey conducted by Legal Week in November revealed that the clear majority of senior lawyers believe the lift of the cap on tuition fees will damage efforts to improve social diversity in commercial law.

There has also been increased focus on the lack of social diversity in law in the wake of the 2009 report overseen by former cabinet minister Alan Milburn, which argued that the professions are largely a closed shop for the privileged.

Indeed, research conducted by Legal Week last year confirmed that UK top 30 law firms overwhelmingly recruit from a select band of universities, with more than a third of magic circle trainees between September 2008 and March 2010 coming from either the University of Oxford or the University of Cambridge. Likewise, another piece of research last year claimed that solicitors were seven times more likely to have been educated at public school as the general public.

But the impact of the Browne review and the wider state of education present a dilemma that will be extremely difficult to resolve under the legal education review. For one, the legal education 'output' is hugely influenced by the 'input' of the general educational landscape. It remains very hard to see how late-stage interventions to legal training can counteract the shortcomings of the UK education system in providing high-quality education beyond a privileged minority.

Likewise, attempts to limit the number of people flocking to vocational legal education will struggle to avoid becoming barriers to less privileged candidates. There is also general consensus that the impact of the Browne review will strengthen the hand of stronger universities, which will be able to charge the highest fees, at the expense of weaker institutions. Prominent legal blogger Mike Semple Piggot, one of the founders of BPP Law School, argued last year that such a move would make tertiary education much more competitive and would likely drive up standards at the top institutions.

But while such trends suggest university standards will improve at the top institutions, many believe they will further benefit privileged candidates at the expense of aspiring lawyers from less traditional backgrounds.

At the least, it is hard to see how the competing aims of improving standards and managing the level of intake on the one hand can be reconciled with calls to improve social diversity on the other.

It is perhaps an irony that some characterise universities as purist defenders of academic standards in comparison to LPC providers, while the outcome of the Browne review partly reflected the desire of leading universities to strengthen their financial hand to compete in the global education market. There is little doubt that top universities have themselves become more commercially minded in recent years in terms of attracting funding and students, even if that shift has not generally translated into academic content.

Amid these competing controversies, the underlying issue of the quality of the training and the practitioners being produced has often struggled to be heard. Nevertheless, the debate has simmered over whether the legal market is even delivering on basic standards.

Although much of the evidence underpinning claims of poor standards seems to be anecdotal, several universities have conducted research through so-called 'mystery shoppers' and 'peer reviews', and by staging mock cross-examinations assessed by trained examiners against an agreed set of criteria. "In broad terms there was a 30% to 40% failure rate, which is just not acceptable," says Cardiff Law School's deputy head, Richard Moorhead (pictured), with regards to research conducted by himself and other academics on professional competence.

However, it should be noted that research by Legal Week has generally found rising satisfaction with the standards of lawyer education in recent years, at least in the commercial end of the profession. There is also a general feeling among City law firms that LPC providers have substantially raised their game since the advent of tailored commercial vocational training a decade ago.

Possible solutions

Arguably, the single issue that has done most to overshadow the review - an over-supply of aspiring lawyers - is something of a red herring, for solicitors at least.

Cardiff's Moorhead has made a convincing case using Law Society statistics that the number of students passing LPCs and the number of training contracts available have been relatively in step since the LPC's introduction nearly 20 years ago.

Moorhead comments: "Interestingly, LPC enrolments have dropped by 20% this year, making the numbers, which got out of kilter over the past couple of years, much more balanced. Law students may want to go into the legal profession but they are getting the message that it's gotten much tougher."

Advocates of supply-side reforms that limit the numbers flocking to the profession would also have to accept that competition law would seriously restrict substantive measures. As such, law schools would be almost certain to mount a legal challenge to attempts to limit the number of LPC and BPTC places offered.

There is, however, a genuine issue at the Bar, where BPTC graduates hugely outstrip pupillage places. This suggests that it will be very difficult to fashion a solution to the issue that would suit both branches of the profession.

Developments in recent years suggest two broad solutions are likely to be leant upon. The first is the use of aptitude tests, which have achieved growing support in recent years. A group of leading universities in 2005 introduced an aptitude test for admissions to law degrees. In September 2010 the Law Society floated such a test for LPC students, while the BSB is already undergoing a similar pilot with the aim of bringing in the new requirement for students applying to start the BPTC in September this year.

Though such tests remain controversial, supporters argue that they can be structured to test underlying ability - and so act as a means of encouraging diversity - and help to weed out those with little realistic chance of becoming a solicitor or barrister. However, it remains to be seen if the momentum for aptitude tests remains once the economy recovers and the weight of higher graduate debt starts cutting the numbers of aspiring lawyers.

Another, perhaps more practical, solution would be either to require vocational law schools to be more explicit about the chances of success for those considering study or for professional bodies like the Law Society and Bar Council to distribute such statistics.

While such measures are relatively cosmetic, the more radical solutions would come with major revision to one or all of the three stages of qualification.

Currently, there appears to be little sign of a consensus emerging for major changes at degree level, despite grumbling from the profession regarding the overly academic mindset of the universities. Changes to the qualifying law degree would also have only limited impact given the large numbers of non-law graduates taking the Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) conversion and foreign lawyers qualifying, to say nothing of expected expansion in the legal executive route to qualification.

However, the College of Law's Savage argues that the law degree is "not fit for purpose" in a changing world in which general practitioners are a dying breed as specialisation becomes the order of the day. "Management skills and commercial awareness are must-haves in the modern legal world, and the traditional undergraduate law degree does not provide these skills," he says.

Tensions also exist over universities' commitment to research, which critics argue is of limited use as law originates by statute or case law and provides little value to the students in terms of practical teaching.

Such sentiments get little support from academics. Timothy Endicott, dean of the faculty of law at Oxford, responds: "I have heard it said that university degrees in law should be more vocational. But in fact what we do is already highly vocational. We teach people to read fast, to write well and to understand the law. Those are the core vocational skills for legal practitioners. We do not train students in negotiation skills or client interviewing, but that doesn't mean that a university degree in law is not vocational - our job is to teach the vocational skill of making a legal argument. Because the profession needs high intellectual standards, I think that any attempt to limit this [academic] freedom would be a setback for the profession as well as for universities."

One compromise put forward in a paper in November by the Legal Services Institute (LSI), the College of Law's think tank, is for the introduction of a new law degree specifically for those intending to go on to practise law.

Arguably, such a move could even be achieved without huge revisions to the foundation subjects of a qualifying law degree but rather through a different style of teaching which emphasises practical application of the law over academic learning.

However, the current consensus is that it is postgraduate training that is more likely to see revision. There have also been calls for the LPC and the BPTC to be effectively merged to create a single postgraduate course. One prominent supporter of this, BSB chair Ruth Deech, argues that it would allow aspiring lawyers to specialise at a later stage and promote flexibility.

An ambitious solution vocally supported by the College of Law is to make the LPC the point of qualification and to abolish the training contract. Those wishing to carry out reserved activities such as probate, litigation or conveyancing would then be subject to further authorisation after qualification.

This suggested model would in theory allow more flexibility for different areas of practice, since many solicitors never undertake reserved activities and end the supposed bottleneck at training contract level. However, this view is yet to win widespread support and City firms, at least, have generally shown little wish to abandon the well-established training contract.

"Would it mean, in effect, that a postgraduate with no practical experience of the law would be made to account personally for any slip-ups they might encounter when they are just starting out?" questions Linklaters training development partner Simon Firth.

It seems more likely that there will be attempts to build more flexible points of entry to qualification that take account of expected growth in legal executives and paralegals in the wake of ABSs and increasing commoditisation of law. Such routes would be one method of broadening diversity in the profession. Indeed, moves to create an apprenticeship route or substantially beef up the option of work-based learning appears to be one area that unites many stakeholders, in particular the SRA and LSB.

Revisions to the LPC and BPTC remain possible. The courses tend to be unpopular with students, with many complaining that they are tedious, impractical and expensive. Given the growth of specialisation, there would also be support for further moves to cut back the compulsory elements of the LPC to allow for more tailored training. A more flexible path to training could in theory make it easier for to reach full qualification without competing at this stage of vocational training.

Others have raised the possibility that solicitor training could be condensed to help offset the impact of rising fees. In November, LSB chair Edmonds gave a speech making the case for a shorter path to qualification.

There will also be pressure for regulators to have a stronger role on setting standards for vocational law schools. It is probably the case that rising dominance of bodies like BPP and the College of Law has made them harder for regulators to effectively control. Certainly, there is considerable support voiced for regulators to tighten up the accreditation and monitoring process for vocational law schools, which critics argue have learned to play the system.

LSI director Stephen Mayson commented on the launch of the body's paper on legal education reform last November: "Rigorous accreditation ensures a level playing field between the large number of providers now active in the field. It is a safeguard against institutions seeking unfair competitive advantage by compromising on quality."

There is also a case to be made that the large market share of a handful of institutions has impacted on competition and fee levels.

But set against that, it should be remembered that the law schools were themselves largely responding to pressure from large commercial firms to specialise and usher in a more practical and client-driven culture. The general view from the City, at least, is that they have largely delivered on this front over the last decade even if their more aggressive culture sometimes led to some self-inflicted PR issues.

On one level this also reflects a tension inherent in the system: law schools serve two customers, on one hand the students paying their own way and, on the other, the larger law firms picking up the bill for their intake. Some would argue that in becoming better at serving the latter group, law schools have been less attentive to the interests of students.

Something must be done? Really?

When faced with the huge complexity of reforming legal education, on reflection the question increasingly becomes not whether the review is overdue but whether it has come too soon.

The profession is already wrestling with a huge number of regulatory changes, thanks largely to the LSA. Many in the profession already feel unable to keep up with the pace of change.

There is a legitimate question to ask as to whether now is the right time for another root-and-branch review when the full impact of the LSA and the reforms to university funding are yet to be felt. Legal education has also tended to be something of a scapegoat for wider forces outside its control; many of the sins laid at its door are largely shaped by wider forces in education and society and the realities of trying to break into a competitive career.

The educational framework has to serve a huge number of needs and interest groups. The fact that it fails to please all of them all the time is hardly surprising, but it is not apparent that any system could achieve that aim.

Perhaps the most valuable thing to come from the review will be to garner some hard facts. As Cardiff's Moorhead has argued, debate in this area has often tended to be conducted on the basis of anecdote and personal experience - hard evidence is thin on the ground. In addition, on closer inspection it seems apparent that the review comes partly in response to concerns shaped by the short-term impact of the recession rather than underlying issues with legal education. There will be those who wonder if the regulators have succumbed to pressure to be seen to be doing something.

There has also been an increasing confusion between the experience of aspiring barristers, who really do face a huge challenge to qualify, and that of solicitors, for whom the market largely seems to function, that has obscured the wider debate.

England and Wales already has a complex regime for those training to become a lawyer and the general framework for legal services has grown more so over the last five years. The experience of previous reviews shows how difficult it is achieve effective change - even during periods in which the profession was much smaller and operating in a less complex environment. There should be considerable hesitation about whether now is the right time.

And while there are some genuine questions over whether there is enough competition in the vocational qualification market and if routes to training are too restrictive, the fact remains that a regime often derided as dysfunctional has served the profession reasonably well. Internationally, the standards of UK lawyers remain very highly regarded. Those with hopes of achieving radical reforms may want to reflect on these issues before seeking out yet another new dawn.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Browne Review - a new blueprint for university funding

The product of a review of university funding by Lord Browne (pictured), the former chief executive of BP, his report in October laid down a blueprint for the biggest shake-up in university funding for decades.

The coalition Government swiftly adopted many of the report's key recommendations: including that universities should be able to charge nearly three times the current tuition fee limit of £3,290.

The higher rates will kick in from 2012-13. Under the new regime, universities will be free to charge up to £6,000 annually. Those wishing to charge up to a limit of £9,000 will have to meet additional conditions on widening participation. Universities will be free to charge different amounts for different courses.

The programme will be backed by a new £150m national scholarship programme for students from poor backgrounds. Graduates will be expected to start paying back their loans once they earn £21,000 annually, up from the current £15,000. They will be required to pay back 9% of their income above the £21,000 threshold. Interest will be charged at inflation plus 3%, though lower earners would be subject to a reduced rate, with those earning £41,000 paying the full amount. Debt will be written off after 30 years.

The Government argues that the reforms, which will be fleshed out in a white paper later this year, will see a quarter of the least-privileged graduates pay less than under the current system. However, there is no doubt that the cost of going to university will rise substantially for the majority.

With many of the leading universities expected to charge the full £9,000 for law degrees, aspiring lawyers could face higher costs of more than £17,000 just to obtain a qualifying law degree.

The policy remains hugely controversial, leading to violent demonstrations in London last year, with critics arguing that the increase in costs for education will deter lower-income students. Much of the long-term political fallout will rest on how successful are the much-touted measures to support students from poorer backgrounds and force top universities to widen access.

However, given the Government's centrepiece commitment to deficit reduction, any substantial watering down of the package seems very unlikely.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The LPC - 10 years of evolution

Having been introduced in 1993 to replace the old Law Society finals, the past 10 years have seen important changes in the Legal Practice Course (LPC), with the entrance of new providers and the development of bespoke versions of the generic LPC for City firms and, more recently, individual firms.

The initial push for reform came in 1999, when news emerged that eight City law firms were in talks to set up a tailored commercial LPC with three providers: BPP Law School, Nottingham Law School and the Oxford Institute of Legal Practice.

The City LPC, which went live in 2001, was seen as a rebuke to the College of Law and an attempt by City firms to secure a more responsive service and practical teaching from vocational law schools, which were viewed as overly academic and generalist in their approach. Firms have been able to decide on the way compulsory elements of the course are taught and, most importantly, choose the content of elective subjects available to their recruits.

The consortium lasted into 2004, when it effectively split in two with BPP taking on five firms: Slaughter and May, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Herbert Smith, legacy Lovells and Norton Rose. The resurgent College of Law signed deals for bespoke LPCs with Clifford Chance (CC), Allen & Overy and Linklaters.

The last five years has seen a concerted drive towards firm-specific LPCs, which also include some skills-based training, and exclusive deals between law firms and LPC providers. BPP, for example, offers a total of 25 firms a tailored LPC. The College of Law, which has established itself alongside BPP as a leading law school in the UK, has 24 deals with law firms.

The LPC has seen more development in recent months with the launch of a 'fast-track' LPC, which lasts for seven months rather than the normal nine. This is currently being offered by the College of Law and BPP to a number of large City law firms, including Linklaters and CC, and is expected to expand.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has also recently overhauled the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test, the much-derided test by which foreign lawyers can re-qualify for England and Wales. New regulations came into force from 1 September 2010, with the first round of assessments due February 2011.

While the general development of the LPC over the last 10 years has focused strongly on commercial practice, specialisation and business skills, the debate continues over the extent to which vocational training can be customised.

"It is important to maintain the transferability of the LPC while also making it as relevant as possible to life in the legal profession. A balance has to be struck, and further research about how to maintain this balance seems essential," says Linklaters training development partner Simon Firth. "However, going back to a generic LPC is simply not feasible in the wake of recent developments in the legal profession."

• For more, see Something mustn't be done - the profession has now reached regulatory overload