FOUR years is just right, three years is too short.

That was the two law schools' view in response to the idea of trimming a year off local law degree courses.

It was mooted on Thursday by the Committee to Develop the Singapore Legal Sector, which released a series of recommendations to reform legal education here.

The panel also suggested, among other things, a regular review of the curricula in both universities' law schools in conjunction with the proposed new Institute of Legal Education, and mandatory continuing education for lawyers.

As part of the restructuring of the present legal education system, it also envisages a Vocational Training Course to replace the current two courses that new law graduates undergo to qualify for practice.

To attract more teaching talent, it wants greater autonomy for law schools to set their fees and revise the pay scales of the better lecturers to reflect marketplace changes.

It also wants to increase the intake of foreign law graduates through a graduate law programme here and recognise a greater number of good foreign law school degrees.

To help reduce the attrition rate, it wants to encourage greater work-life balance in law firms.

On the three-year proposal, the Singapore Management University president Howard Hunter said yesterday that he did not think it was 'a good idea as the students here were quite young and relatively inexperienced'.

He found the rest of the report very good and the committee had an 'excellent road map for the future of the legal services sector'.

The National University of Singapore's Law Faculty dean, Professor Tan Cheng Han, said its four-year course had significant advantages.

Read the full story in Saturday's edition of The Straits Times.