The Legal Services Board's (LSB) proposed statutory overhaul of solicitors' training has been condemned by the City of London Law Society (CLLS) as 'deeply flawed'.

In September, the LSB published a consultation paper outlining statutory guidance for the implementation of the Legal Education and Training Review (LETR), which was published in June.

The LETR represented a full examination of training and education amid changes in the legal services market. Recommendations in the report included 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 light of new market developments such as alternative business structures.

In its response to the LSB, the CLLS argued that the three frontline regulators and sponsors of the LETR – the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Bar Standards Board and ILEX Professional Standards – are better placed to decide whether statutory guidance is needed.

The CLLS also disagreed with the LSB that education and training requirements should be set at the minimum level "at which an individual is deemed competent for the activity".

The body called for the withdrawal of the LSB's paper.

Allan Murray-Jones, M&A partner at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom and member of the CLLS training committee said: "We feel that the LSB is trying to carve out a much larger role for itself than Parliament originally intended its purpose to be. Our main problem with the LSB proposals is that it dismisses the LETR as 'only one piece of evidence'. It is also an issue for City solicitors who the LSB are claiming as 'over-educated' as we are trying to compete with US firms. Overall we feel that to issue guidance on this is completely unnecessary."

The CLLS said it had no difficulty with multiple routes to qualification and that legal regulators are entitled to determine what should be taught as part of a Qualifying Law Degree.

The committee concluded: "Our industry is too big and too important to be the subject of regulation based on what we see as flawed thinking. This draft guidance cannot stand."