I was amused to read Michael Robinson’s letter suggesting a solicitor apprenticeship as a way of reducing the cost of training. What he describes is virtually a return to the articles of clerkship, through which I and countless other solicitors entered the profession until entry was restricted to graduates some 30 years ago.

On leaving school we signed articles and bound ourselves to our principal for five years. A short period in the office was followed by part 1 of the Law Society’s examinations, which took a year, and then there was a continuous period in the office for two years.

After that there was a further period of study for part 2 of the law examinations, which lasted about six months. Once the five years had expired we automatically qualified as solicitors.

The system was inexpensive in that most of us lived at home, except when we were on residential courses (with landladies of varying fearfulness!). Pay was a problem. I was told by my principal that he would not ask for a premium (very common 40 years ago) but then I was not paid for my first three years and then only a pittance.

The quality of solicitors produced was every bit as good as it is today and I know of successful equity partners in both London and the provinces who were trained in this way.

If articles, or an apprenticeship, were to be introduced today pay would still be an issue and a proper salary structure would have to be set out to ensure that there was no exploitation of enthusiastic - but naive - entrants to our profession. As grants are no longer available, some arrangement would also have to be reached between the parties regarding who would pay the fees for the LPC or other necessary courses.

Whatever system was adopted it would at least ensure that no student would have to undergo today’s grossly unfair system of paying for an LPC without the certainty of obtaining a training contract.

Andrew Sutherland, London SW14