Much-delayed education report dubbed a 'milestone' rather than a radical examination. Alex Newman reports

Did it live up to the hype? "An important milestone, rather than the last word" was the verdict of Legal Services Board chair David Edmonds. The view neatly sums up the subdued response to the publication of the much-delayed report by the Legal Education and Training Review (LETR), billed as the most fundamental examination of the sector since the Ormrod report of 1971.

"The response from the legal education sector has been terribly quiet and rather muted," says Diane Burleigh, CEO of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX). "I think that's tied up with the very large amount of information in the report – it's very tempting to just scan through the recommendations."

The measured reaction might also owe something to what University College London professor Richard Moorhead calls the "wide, ill-defined brief" attached to the LETR, and the need to accommodate – and perhaps reach a compromise between – the views of competing professional bodies.

The diplomatic juggling act did not impress everyone. "I thought, looking back at the terms of reference, it was meant to be quite radical, so something between then and now has clearly shifted," says John Flood, professor of law and sociology at the University  of Westminster. "I'm a bit disappointed to tell you the truth. It has come out with a bit of a whimper rather than a bang."

"The sector and some commentators were in effect doing their own crystal ball gazing, but nobody knows what the future of legal services is going to look like," counters Burleigh (pictured). "The criticism that the review was not imaginative enough is not hugely fair."

Futurologists the LETR may not be, but all are in agreement that training and education warrants a full examination, amid – in the LETR's words – "unprecedented change" in the legal services market.

Recommendations in the report include the establishment of professional standards for internships and work experience, wider non-graduate pathways into law, and a sharper focus on commercial awareness in the Legal Practice Course in the context of new market developments such as alternative business structures.

"Legal education and training has to keep pace with the developing business models permitted by the Legal Services Act," says Professor Stuart Sime, director of the Bar Professional Training Course at City Law School. "The report seeks to provide a road map for the way ahead in ensuring the public interest is protected in a rapidly changing world."

For Burleigh, the report represents an important starting point to encourage discussions around "greater flexibility in accessing the range of professional qualifications". 

She argues: "The need for more and better progression routes across professions, and at different times, is key to the future of the legal profession. We want to explore flexibility and transferability across legal professions."

Bringing together the thoughts of key practitioners, alongside the Bar Standards Board (BSB), Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the Law Society and ILEX Professional Standards (IPS) is an undertaking LETR head Julian Webb and his team will know full well.

"Managing the politics of the BSB, CILEX and the SRA is really difficult as they have quite divergent views, but it's a decent compromise," says one senior market commentator. "If they had outsourced it to a management consultancy type, it would have been far worse."

Others are less convinced. Flood comments: "A few months ago, I was in a debate on legal education with a member of the Bar, and it was very clear that the Bar wanted to maintain the status quo, and no evaluation of the mythical core of its workings. I expect the BSB and SRA are quite happy; with all the delays, I suspect the current report looks a lot different to how it did at the end of last year.

"One thing that wasn't addressed is how you really don't need to know a lot of law to be a lawyer. They could have instead come up with some really interesting law degree programmes which focus on certain areas, and reduce the barriers to entrance into the profession." 

Another key proposal in the 350-plus page report is the creation of a Legal Education Council to provide a forum for the co-ordination of the continuing review of legal services education.

Whether or not such a body can help steer the findings of the LETR into real change, the next chapter is in the hands of the regulators. 

As Sime concludes: "The report recommends incremental reform, so there are interesting times ahead as the regulators seek to ensure legal education and training continues to equip the profession for the demands of a rapidly changing world."