Proposals to open up entry to the profession have been met with grave concerns over the quality of newly-qualified solicitors.

City firms have slammed Law Society proposals to radically revamp the training contract, arguing that the reforms risk lowering the educational standards of newly-qualified solicitors.

The highly critical response indicates the society will face a battle if it presses ahead with the proposals issued in August as part of its controversial training framework review, which could cut the length of a training contract from two years to just 16 months.

The proposals are intended to open up the profession to allow those without training contracts to qualify as solicitors providing they can show they have gained core skills and experience while working in a legal environment.

However, City lawyers have reacted with near-unanimous opposition to the move.

Dick Tyler, managing partner of CMS Cameron McKenna, told Legal Week: "I do not want anything that reduces the quality of newly-qualified solicitors and could expose clients to risk. There has got to be some assurance that the quality of training is sufficient to be admitted. I do not want the bar to be lowered."

Louise Stoker, head of training at Slaughter and May, said:

"I appreciate the point that people develop at different times but 16 months is, in principle, too low, given that it will probably become the norm and not the exception. It is particularly disappointing as I had the impression that the consensus was strong support for maintaining the two-year period."

The Law Society's initial consultation closed on 29 September, although a wider 12-week consultation is planned for before the end of the year. A pilot scheme is planned for September 2007.

City lawyers are studying Chancery Lane's proposals, which would see trainees qualify after demonstrating 12 core skills through building a portfolio and meeting with an assessor for four separate reviews to take place at least four months apart.

Those on formal training contracts will be assessed by their firms, with the society tough-ening up its accreditation process and increasing monitoring. This is likely to increase validation costs and administration for firms.

Those without training contracts will be able to register with the society's regulation board and plan their assessment independently with a board assessor – most likely paying for themselves.

Marco Compagnoni, a partner with Weil Gotshal & Manges in London, said: "This job is all about experience and soaking up knowledge – anything that cuts that down is bad."