A law degree (or CPD) plus Legal Practice Course is insufficient preparation for practice, and so there has to be an element of practical training. At the moment there is little quality control of training contracts; if you can last the two years, then you are in.

There are some truly abysmal training contracts – two years spent photocopying bundles is not uncommon. The problem is that some firms have forgotten that they have a primary professional duty to their trainees to ensure their development.

However, just because the current system does not work across all firms does not necessarily mean that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the training contract model.

There needs to be a proper, hands-on, audit of training contracts. Firms that fail to demonstrate their commitment to trainees’ professional development should not be allowed to have trainees. There also needs to be a syllabus that the supervising body needs to monitor properly and trainees need to produce evidence that they have covered the required topics.

I do think that the LPC and training contract should be amalgamated into a single theoretical and practical course. LPC modules would be related to the seats in which trainees are placed, so both the training contract and the theoretical element would be more focused and relevant. As the course would be based in both an academic institution and a law firm, supervision would be much more active and easily achieved. Trainees would have to find practice placements before commencing the course. This approach would eliminate the oversupply of trainees at a stroke.

Howard Shelley,QualitySolicitors CMHT, Walsall