2,753 students sat latest assessment

The pass rate for the latest sitting of part two of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE2) has reached a record high of 82%, according to new figures released by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

The April–May 2025 sitting saw 2,753 candidates sit the assessment, with first-time sitters — making up the bulk of the cohort at 2,577 candidates — achieving an even higher pass rate of 84%.

This surpasses the previous high of 81%, recorded earlier this year.

SQE2 comprises 16 stations in total, including 12 written assessments and four oral assessments, testing practical skills and the application of legal knowledge. You can read the SRA’s latest statistical report in full here.

News of the pass rates comes as a petition calling for an overhaul of the SQE surpassed 1,500 signatures. The anonymous trainee behind the petition argues that the exams are “not fit for purpose” and discriminate against candidates from diverse backgrounds and those with different learning styles. They also shared how preparing for the SQE has taken a serious toll on their mental, financial and physical wellbeing.

Loughborough Uni general counsel and AstraZeneca senior lawyer among those to publicly criticise new assessment regime

Several senior in-house lawyers have voiced concerns about the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE), with one describing it as an “oppressive” and “irrational” system that jeopardises students’ wellbeing.

In a letter to Solicitors Regulation Authority’s chief executive Paul Philip, Samuel McGinty, general counsel and director of legal services at Loughborough University, said his team had been “struck by the unnecessary complexity and what I would describe as the oppressive nature of the SQE arrangements”.

Although the university does not offer legal education, it employs a solicitor apprentice who sat SQE1. McGinty praised the apprentice as “very professional and capable”, but said her experience of the exam process had highlighted serious systemic flaws.

Among the issues raised by McGinty were confusing booking processes, strict and intrusive exam rules, and the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), which he argued “acts as a block to development and improvement”.

“I do however feel that requiring candidates to complete a formal non-disclosure agreement is disproportionate, especially in the context of their candidacy to join a profession which is bound by professional rules around integrity and confidentiality,” McGinty wrote.

He also criticised what he called an “oppressive” exam environment, which he claims includes “close surveillance”, “personal searches”, and restrictions on bringing water into the five-hour assessment. “Surely being able to take water into an exam of that length is something to which all candidates should be entitled?” he added.

On the design of the exam itself, McGinty argued that the highly time-pressured multiple-choice format seems “irrational”, “bears no resemblance to practice” and amounts to little more than a “memory test”.

The letter also raised concerns over mental health and wellbeing, citing reports of candidates experiencing panic attacks and exacerbation of existing health conditions in exam centres. “This is at best an inauspicious start to a career as a regulated professional and at worst communicates that the SRA’s concern as to wellbeing in the profession is not reflected in their own practices,” McGinty said.

McGinty warned that these issues could disproportionately affect candidates from less privileged backgrounds, undermining the SRA’s stated mission to improve access and diversity in the profession. “For those from less privileged backgrounds, the previously described experience will be more acute,” he cautioned.

The letter ends with a call for urgent reform: “I would urge the SRA to promptly review the way the assessment is designed and administered to protect the wellbeing of the candidates and to effectively prepare candidates for practice.”

In a LinkedIn post accompanying his letter, McGinty revealed that he had written it last year but felt compelled to share it publicly this week, following the launch of a petition by a trainee solicitor calling for changes to the SQE. “Some of the issues being raised now are ones I flagged to the SRA a year ago,” he wrote. “Nothing appears to have changed since then.”

The Loughborough GC isn’t the only in-house lawyer speaking out.

Tanya Dolan, senior legal counsel at AstraZeneca UK, urged people across the profession to sign the trainee’s petition, which argues that the new exams are “disproportionately challenging” and have taken a severe toll on candidates’ mental, financial and physical wellbeing.

“For some time, I have been working to understand why so little is being done to address the serious impact of the SQE exams on students’ mental and physical health and why, in practice, the SQE is creating more barriers to entering the legal profession,” Dolan wrote in a post shared on LinkedIn.

While urging people to sign the petition, she asked them to reflect on the serious questions it raises about the SQE’s implementation and oversight.

Separately, Madeleine Weber, commercial counsel at the software company Sitestacker, also criticised the SQE in response to an article by former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who branded students signing the petition as “snowflakes” and claimed they simply wanted the exams to be made easier.

“This is not about lowering standards,” Weber writes on LinkedIn. “Candidates aren’t asking to be handed qualification on a plate.” She goes on to say that students seek clarity on exam content, fewer admin errors, access to the right prep tools as well as more financials support to fund exams. “An exam can be rigorous and well-run,” she continues. “It can maintain high standards while giving candidates a fair shot.”

In a statement in response to the petition, the SRA said: “We understand that candidates can find the SQE challenging, both to prepare for and sit. It is a demanding, high stakes assessment that gives successful candidates access to a licence to practise.”

It continued:

“The questions are written by a pool of solicitors reflecting what is expected of a newly qualified solicitor and the pass mark is determined using well-established methods. The SQE’s independent reviewer has confirmed it’s a robust and fair assessment. Many candidates have now passed the SQE. Pass rates and statistical information about candidates are published after each sitting. Differential outcomes by ethnicity are widely seen in legal professional exams, in other sectors and at different stages of education. Informed by research commissioned from the University of Exeter, we are taking action to address the causes of such differential outcomes that are within our influence.”

One conflated LPC and SQE routes

Around one in three law school websites contain “factually inaccurate” or “confusing” information about courses and routes to qualification as a solicitor, new research has found.

A content analysis of 93 LLB webpages revealed examples including continuing to describe their degree as a “Qualifying Law Degree” (QLD) without explanation, implying that the QLD is still a requirement for becoming a solicitor, failing to explain the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE), or suggesting it only applies to some candidates.

Other instances included outdated text (such as stating the SQE was still “due to commence in 2021 subject to LSB approval”), contradictory information within the same site, and in one case, what the authors describe as “woefully” conflating the LPC and SQE pathways.

The QLD was the standard law degree structure under the old Legal Practice Course (LPC) system. It required students to study the Foundations of Legal Knowledge — seven core subjects (contract, tort, public law, criminal law, land law, equity and trusts and EU law) — as a mandatory part of their degree. Since the SQE was introduced in 2021, there is no longer any requirement for aspiring solicitors to study all seven Foundations. However, they remain compulsory for those wishing to qualify as barristers.

Despite this regulatory change, the study found that nearly 80% of law schools still make students take all seven core subjects. The researchers say this is likely due to tradition, the influence of the bar’s rules and the desire to keep degrees attractive to would-be barristers.

The authors warn that inaccurate or unclear information could confuse prospective students making big decisions about where to study, especially given that solicitor qualification routes are now more varied and less familiar.

The research was carried out by Victoria Roper (Northumbria University), Rachel Dunn (Leeds Beckett University) and David Sixsmith (Northumbria University), and is published in Legal Studies.

Support paralegals to qualify as solicitors

The College of Legal Practice has teamed up with Pinsent Masons’ flexible lawyering arm to support its paralegals on the path to solicitor qualification.

The online law school will deliver SQE prep to paralegals at Vario, Pinsents’ flexible legal services arm, through a new initiative dubbed ‘MLS Qualify’. The first two MLS trainees will begin their roles in September, with SQE training due to finish by summer 2027.

Led by Richard Coffey, head of Vario Managed Legal Services Delivery, the new pathway is designed to support social mobility and provide a clear progression route for paralegals working in non-traditional legal roles.

“MLS Qualify was designed to reflect the changing nature of legal practice and the myriad routes by which people can choose to pursue a career in law,” Coffey said. “For us at Vario, the emphasis has always been on ensuring there’s no glass ceiling to the paralegal career pathway.”

He continued: “This initiative is specifically designed to offer MLS Trainees experience of legal technology teams and other non-traditional work as part of their training, to ensure that innovation in legal services delivery is a core part of their learning.”

The College will deliver flexible, online SQE prep through a year-long programme that fits around trainees’ day-to-day client work while allowing ample time for study alongside their existing roles at Vario.

This more flexible route to qualification is possible thanks to changes introduced with the SQE, which allow aspiring lawyers to bypass the traditional training contract and instead complete Qualifying Work Experience (QWE) with up to four different employers, including law firms, in-house legal teams and law clinics.

Dr Giles Proctor, chief executive of the College, commented:

“We are delighted to have been selected to train Vario’s first MLS Trainees and be part of this new pathway to SQE success. The College shares many of Vario’s values and ethos, focusing on flexibility, responsiveness and innovation, and ensuring a good work life balance for our students.”

The College already has SQE training partnerships in place with firms including Reed Smith and Accutrainee.

Former Home Sec slammed students calling for exam overhaul

The trainee solicitor behind a petition calling for an overhaul of the “disproportionately challenging” Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) has hit back at lawyer-turned-politician Suella Braverman KC, after she claimed in a national newspaper that those signing it had a “snowflake sensibility”.

For Legal Cheek readers who haven’t been following the story, we first reported late last week that someone purporting to be a trainee at an international law firm had launched a petition calling for reform of the SQE.

In it, they argue the new exams are “not fit for purpose” and claim they discriminate against candidates from diverse backgrounds and those with different learning styles. The trainee also described how the SQE had taken a serious toll on their mental, financial, and physical wellbeing. The petition has since attracted nearly 900 signatures.

One person we can safely assume hasn’t signed the petition is former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who — much to our surprise — took to the pages of The Telegraph to voice her displeasure.

“A cohort of aspiring solicitors has taken to petitioning for the SQE to be made easier,” she writes. “Their complaint? The exams are ‘too hard, disproportionately challenging’, and, of course, ‘biased towards certain backgrounds and learning styles’. In other words: ‘We didn’t do well, and it must be someone else’s fault.’”

The former Cambridge-educated barrister goes on to argue that the “snowflake sensibility — once confined to undergraduate common rooms and the wilder fringes of social media — has now infected even the corridors of legal ambition”.

Well, the rookie solicitor who launched the petition has now responded to Braverman’s comments in a brief update posted on the Change.org website.

“Nowhere in the petition did I claim that the exam was ‘too hard’,” they say. “I’m not a wet lettuce, for Christ’s sake.” Doubling down on their argument that the SQE is “disproportionately challenging”, they urged the Conservative MP to “don your reading spectacles and place your thinking cap firmly on and re-read [the petition].”

They go on to list what they describe as the key issues currently affecting the SQE and the students expected to pass it — many of which are already highlighted in the original petition.

These include the “extortionate” cost of sitting the exams, the lack of past papers, reports of candidates allegedly being “denied access [to] water during the exam,” and concerns that the questions do not reflect real-life legal practice.

“I am somewhat disappointed that a KC could not identify the more nuanced points made within the petition,” they write. “However, I guess that comes with the territory of using the penniless youth trying hard to succeed in your political point scoring,” before the trainee signs off, “Yours sincerely, A snowflake x.”

In response to the petition, a spokesperson for the SRA previously said: “We understand that candidates can find the SQE challenging, both to prepare for and sit. It is a demanding, high stakes assessment that gives successful candidates access to a licence to practise.”

They continued:

“The questions are written by a pool of solicitors reflecting what is expected of a newly qualified solicitor and the pass mark is determined using well-established methods. The SQE’s independent reviewer has confirmed it’s a robust and fair assessment. Many candidates have now passed the SQE. Pass rates and statistical information about candidates are published after each sitting. Differential outcomes by ethnicity are widely seen in legal professional exams, in other sectors and at different stages of education. Informed by research commissioned from the University of Exeter, we are taking action to address the causes of such differential outcomes that are within our influence.”

Support up to 190 aspiring solicitors

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has dished out £360,000 to support disadvantaged candidates taking the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE), using money from fines imposed on assessment provider Kaplan.

The SQE Access and Reinvestment Fund, which has been accumulating since the SQE launched in 2021, will help cover exam fees for up to 190 aspiring solicitors from underrepresented backgrounds in its first round of distribution.

The funding has been allocated to 11 organisations, including social mobility charities, universities, and training providers. Recipients include the Legal Social Mobility Fund, Black and Proud CIC, and The Law Society’s Diversity Access Scheme, as well as law schools such as The College of Legal Practice and The University of Law.

Each organisation will run its own process to determine which aspiring lawyers are selected, with the first cohort potentially starting as early as January 2026.

The fund consists of performance-based payments from Kaplan, in line with its contract with the SRA. Over the past two years, the assessment provider has faced criticism for administrative failings, including wrongly informing 175 candidates that they had failed the SQE.

Paul Philip, SRA chief executive, said:

“One of the objectives of the SQE is to promote a diverse profession by removing artificial and unjustifiable barriers. Our decision to distribute the fund in this way reflects our commitment to meeting the SQE objectives. The fund recognises that talent, not financial circumstances, should determine who can become a solicitor. Up to 190 candidates could be supported through the scheme. We look forward to following their journeys.”

The 11 organisations receiving funding are: Aberystwyth University Veterans’ Legal Link, Accutrainee, Black and Proud CIC, Bristol Law Society, Law Training Centre, Legal Social Mobility Fund, Social Welfare Solicitors’ Qualification Fund, The College of Legal Practice, The Law Society of England and Wales (Diversity Access Scheme), The University of Central Lancashire, and The University of Law.

New training regime slammed by TC holder

An individual claiming to be a future trainee solicitor has launched a public campaign calling for reform of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE), citing the “severe toll” it has taken on her mental, financial and physical wellbeing.

Using the name ‘Hannah Cox’, which she’s since stated is an alias, the petitioner raises several key concerns, including what she describes as the “opaque nature” of SQE administration, particularly the SRA’s delay in publishing individual exam providers’ pass rates. This lack of transparency has, she argues, eroded trust among aspiring lawyers and is further compounded by reports of inaccurate exam results and an inadequate appeals process.

“The SQE is not fit for purpose,” states the petition, which has attracted over 260 signatures. It highlights concerns that elements of the exam may discriminate against candidates from diverse backgrounds and with different learning styles. This, she says, poses a threat to the diversity of the legal profession and risks excluding valuable perspectives that “enrich legal practice”.

The petition also addresses concerns about the SQE’s impact on students’ mental health. “The pressure and uncertainty surrounding the SQE is damaging, with many candidates enduring extreme stress and anxiety,” she writes. This mental toll is an “unacceptable consequence” of an exam meant to broaden access to the profession.

The future trainee continues:

“Despite being academically very strong, with a law degree from a top university and a training contract with an international firm, I have found the SQE disproportionately challenging. It has not only affected my academic life but has also taken a severe toll on my mental, financial, and physical well-being. This is a sentiment echoed by the vast majority of other candidates who have undertaken this exam.”

“Future legal professionals deserve a fair and equitable path to qualification,” she continues, calling on the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to improve transparency and conduct a thorough review of the SQE’s content and structure. She argues that the exam should accurately assess a candidate’s capability without placing undue strain on their mental and physical health.

Since its introduction in 2021, the SQE has not delivered the smooth rollout the SRA had hoped for. Legal Cheek has previously reported a range of issues, including IT failures at test centres, long online queues to book exam slots, and what is arguably the most serious error to date — a calculation blunder that wrongly informed 175 students they had failed SQE1.

An SRA spokesperson said: “We understand that candidates can find the SQE challenging, both to prepare for and sit. It is a demanding, high stakes assessment that gives successful candidates access to a licence to practise.”

They continued:

“The questions are written by a pool of solicitors reflecting what is expected of a newly qualified solicitor and the pass mark is determined using well-established methods. The SQE’s independent reviewer has confirmed it’s a robust and fair assessment. Many candidates have now passed the SQE. Pass rates and statistical information about candidates are published after each sitting. Differential outcomes by ethnicity are widely seen in legal professional exams, in other sectors and at different stages of education. Informed by research commissioned from the University of Exeter, we are taking action to address the causes of such differential outcomes that are within our influence.”

Trainee solicitor Matthew Smith explains how

Once I finished my law degree, I was eager to start working in a firm to gain some practical experience after three years of study. In 2022, I began working at a personal injury firm. After some time as a paralegal, I progressed to become a trainee solicitor.

Since I had not completed the Legal Practice Course (LPC), I needed to pass the Solicitors Qualifying Exams (SQE). As the exams were relatively new I wanted to make sure I understood how they worked and what the preparation for them would look like.

When I researched whether the SQE could be done without a course, every website I visited concluded that it was not realistic — with a link in each to enrol on a course costing thousands.

In my head, I questioned the need: if I could get my hands on the knowledge required why would a weekly lecture be necessary. I quickly learnt that this would be a bigger challenge than I had initially anticipated, especially when working full-time.

When I left the first SQE1 exam in January of this year, I was not feeling hopeful. I think that mindset hindered my motivation for the second exam, which perhaps explains why I performed slightly worse in it. It’s so important not to let how you think you did knock you off balance. I told myself ‘Well, the second exam is paid for — the least I can do is show up.’

Some weeks later, I logged on to my SRA account, finally found the right page — and there it was, I had passed both. I went down to tell my team leader, who had supported me through the process. She was almost as happy as I was. It all suddenly felt worth it.

I think part of the challenge with these exams is they test you on general principles, the exceptions to those principles and when the exceptions themselves don’t apply. Of course, this is reflective of the law itself, so it’s to be expected but that doesn’t make learning it any easier. Revision structured with this in mind would be helpful.

My advice to anyone considering tackling the SQE would be to set a target exam date as soon as possible. I initially thought early on studying would help, but after rescheduling exams, I found the process increasingly prolonged and draining. I don’t think anyone ever really feels ready for these exams, but you likely know more than you think. There is so much content and I do believe you can only retain it all for so long. At some point you just have to take the jump. I remember telling my dad if I don’t take these exams in the next sitting, I never will.

I would suggest if you are struggling with a specific topic, if it just doesn’t make sense to you — move on. The exams test you on a broad range of topics you need to be realistic, how many questions do you think will come up in relation to that specific area.

If you are considering self studying for the SQE without a course I would urge you to make sure you purchase textbooks which focus on the SRA Syllabus, there is too much to learn without you trying to revise anything that is not relevant.

One of the hardest parts, in my view, was not knowing how much I actually knew. With courses you have internal exams which track your progress, give you mocks and predict your likely chances of success. Without a course I had no idea. This led to a lot of doubt in my mind, I didn’t just occasionally wonder if this could even be done; I’d say there was more time spent with this mindset than without.

I’d like to say I had a strict study schedule but if I am being honest I finished my textbooks not long before the first exam, this was with me putting in a lot of effort to get through them. Of course there was a lot of flashcards involved, in fact 6,800 minutes on Quizlet.

To pass without a course you will need a lot of self discipline and motivation, if you think you need a course for this reason then that might be a better option for you. Passing the exams without one is far from a shortcut.

Studying with a full time job was also a challenge I had to face. I got into a habit of getting to the office at 8am for an hour of revision before starting work only for revision to also fill my lunch breaks.

Prior to studying for these exams I had got into a routine of going to the the gym after work most days, I had initially tried to maintain this and rush back to cook, eat and have time to revise however it quickly became too much. There was simply not enough hours in the day. I had to make the sacrifice of keeping the gym to the weekend when I’d have more time. You have to acknowledge that in this phase of your life studying will have to be prioritised, but it won’t be forever.

Motivating myself to open a book of land law when I got home after work wasn’t always easy but I found breaking things into blocks helped; I’d say I’ll just read these chapters or go over this flashcard deck. I’d also try and keep time past 9pm to myself.

Looking ahead to SQE2, I feel more confident in my own approach. I’ve learned to trust my own strategy and focus on what works for me, rather than whats pushed as the ‘standard route’. Throughout further education, it’s easy to compare yourself with others. That mindset will not be helpful throughout the SQE. Your journey will look different to others no matter how you approach these exams so focus on your strategy and what is working for you.

There are no published statistics comparing the performance of self-study candidates with those enrolled on a course, so I can only speak from my experience. I can’t say that self-studying is the right choice for everyone. For some, it will be unrealistic; for others, too big of a financial risk. But I do think it’s important for people to know that self-study can be done with success — and has been done with success.

If you’d like to connect or have any questions about my SQE journey, feel free to reach out via LinkedIn.

Matthew Smith is a trainee solicitor working in personal injury. He has successfully completed SQE1 and is currently preparing to sit SQE2 with the goal of qualifying as a solicitor by the end of 2025.

Aims to improve fairness, says SRA

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has announced changes to its SQE appeals and complaints policies, aiming to improve fairness, transparency, and accessibility for students.

One of the main tweaks to the appeals policy is the introduction of “conditional appeals” for mitigating circumstances. This means students can appeal a mitigating circumstances decision if they have new evidence that was not available at the time of their original claim.

Other updates announced by the regulator this week include a clearer process for candidates who miss deadlines for submitting documents or evidence, and a new right for candidates to request copies of documents considered at the first stage of appeal. The SRA says this will help candidates decide whether to continue with their appeal.

The changes also confirm that independent members will remain part of appeal panels to ensure fairness.

Another key change is the introduction of a review panel to consider late appeals, which will only be accepted in “exceptional circumstances” and subject to a reduced fee for initial review. If the panel agrees there is a valid reason for the delay, the appeal will then proceed as normal.

The updated appeals policy will apply to all SQE candidates sitting assessments from July 2025 onwards. Candidates who sat the SQE before this date will remain under the previous policy.

Changes have also been made to the complaints policy to “enhance clarity” and make the process easier to follow. It also clarifies what happens if a complaint is submitted late and explains why the deadline is in place.

The updates follow recent changes by the regulator to simplify the process for students applying for reasonable adjustments. You can check these out here.

Partnership will expand to include bar training from September 2026 

The University of Law has struck a deal with Oxford Brookes University to deliver its SQE-ready LLM from this September.

The partnership means aspiring lawyers will be able to study ULaw’s LLM Legal Practice (SQE1&2) full-time at Oxford Brookes’ campus.

ULaw added that there are plans to expand the partnership from September next year to include its Bar Practice Course (BPC), enabling it to support aspiring barristers in the region as well.

“We are committed to working with training providers that bring real value to students and expand access to high-quality professional education,” commented Dr Sara Hannam, deputy pro-Vice chancellor in the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences at Oxford Brookes. “This collaboration with The University of Law will enrich our postgraduate legal training offer and open up exciting new pathways into the legal profession.”

Professor Peter Crisp, deputy vice-chancellor at ULaw, added:

“We are delighted to collaborate with Oxford Brookes University, which marks ULaw’s 11th collaboration with a university law school. We continue to prove highly successful in providing accessible, industry leading education nationwide. We look forward to working closely with Oxford Brookes in building what promises to be a very exciting extension to its law school offering.”

News of the tie-up comes around three years after fellow law school, The College of Legal Practice, agreed a deal with Brookes that gave its graduates discounted fees on its range of preparation courses. This came to an end last year.

This marks ULaw’s second university tie-up in quick succession, following a similar deal with the University of Hull in April, under which it will deliver both its LLM SQE and Postgraduate Diploma in Law.

ULaw already has partnerships in place with a number of other universities, including Royal Holloway, Exeter, Liverpool, Reading, Newcastle, and Southampton.

Thom Brooks, professor of law and government at Durham University, puts forward his recommendations for overhauling the SQE

Legal Cheek invited me to speak at its first LegalEdCon in 2018 on a panel about the SRA’s planned SQE. While it seemed certain to be launched, there was some uncertainty about when exactly that might happen and the impact it might have on law schools and beyond.

Drawing a comparison with the big political debate at the time, I remarked that the SQE sounded a lot like Brexit in some curious ways. First, there did not seem to be widespread calls for a new super exam before plans for a SQE were first proposed.

Secondly, the SQE was presented as a means to solve many big challenges. For example, the first LegalEdCon heard that it might make qualifying cheaper and improve the quality of the newly qualified while improving access to, and diversity within, the profession.

There were other similarities. For instance, it was unclear exactly how the new exam would operate and achieve its lofty goals. We were told at the time ‘Brexit means Brexit’. Likewise, it seemed the SQE meant SQE. The date for when this would happen seemed to move further into the distance. All the while there were concerns raised that the promised benefits might not materialize.

After Brexit came in 2020, the SQE followed soon after in 2021. However, it’s unclear that the SQE has delivered as promised since its freedom day.

Take for example the claim that the SQE would enable better access and transparency, including different SQE provider exam results, which would help drive provider performance, improve student choice and keep costs down. However, since its launch and despite repeated reassurances to the contrary, the SRA has yet to publish pass-rate data for SQE training providers and the affordability, design and quality of the exam itself, an issue rightly flagged by the Legal Services Board.

The available data that I have seen is disappointing. While the pass rate rose to 56% in January, it had fallen to 44% last July. This doesn’t sound great where half or most failing to pass – and still no indication of what a ‘good’ pass rate might look like.

The attainment gap is worse. 50% of white students sit the SQE1 and 70% pass it. 25% of black students sit the SQE1 and 37% pass. This is true at SQE2 too (where the pass rate is over 80% overall): white 84%, black 51%. There is also a gap between independent school educated (70-72%) versus non-selective state school (58%). And some passed even when told they failed, as happened to 175 people last year.

Depending on the preparation course used, some, like the Legal Action Group, claim the SQE has not resulted in significantly reducing costs.

The SQE has happened (and so too Brexit). I’ve been concerned about the SQE from the start and see many of the worries that I and others raised materialising. But as I told LegalEdCon 2025, I don’t think it helpful or productive seven years later to point fingers nor reopen the debate over whether to retain the SQE.

Instead, continuing the Brexit analogy, I argue it is time for a reset with meaningful conversation about how we might the SQE better where various stakeholders work more closely together to get it right.

My 10 point plan for SQE reform:

First, the SRA should consider creating a SQE Advisory Panel. Members might include the recently qualified via the SQE, senior law firm figures and, yes, law professors. (I do not usually make recommendations that I would not personally support delivering.) This Panel can help close the gap between the test takers, test makers and practice to provide an important independent feedback loop on processes and test design beyond anonymous surveys of test takers.

Secondly, the SQE content for exams one and two should be re-examined. Where is law and tech? This is rapidly transforming the sector in ways already profound and will move forward with significant consequences. There should also be a review of what is assessed in each part.

Thirdly, there should be a review into whether an exemption of at least some parts might be advisable and practicable for law graduates. We already know high performing law graduates pass the SQE anyway – and as high as 80% for those with a first class degree. If there were possible, it could widen access further, cut costs and even make sense.

Fourthly, the SRA should consider providing greater financial support for test takers. This might include increasing exam fee discounts that might benefit more relevant individuals. There is no magic money tree for sure, but if support were available it would be widely welcomed. Income received from exam candidates was 21% higher than originally budgeted in 2023/24 reaching £36.7m. This is expected to rise up to £66m for 2024-25 nearly doubling in a year.

Fifthly, there should be more test centres available in the North. While there are various locations for SQE1, there is only Birmingham, Cardiff and Manchester for SQE2. Why not Leeds, York or Newcastle?

Sixthly, there should be a review of reasonable adjustment options for neurodiverse and disabled students. This should include reviewing study resources.

Seventhly, we need greater transparency on the data. This means repeatedly promised and long overdue performance data linked to providers. No more delays. This would benefit from a view of target pass ranges. When is it too high or low?

Eighthly, it would be helpful if data was provided on SQE success and careers. Does smashing the SQE mean a smashing successful career?

Ninthly, this to be published data should be linked to a strategic plan to improve it. Since its introduction, we’ve seen an attainment gap. We know the numbers. So, what’s the plan to improve the outcomes? The SQE’s promise all along is we’d have more data at hand to better guide fixing problems like this. We see the issues. We need to see a plan to fix them.

Finally, there needs to be a more constructive and open engagement with educationalists, providers and the wider legal sector about how we improve the SQE. We all want better access with robust standards. Point scoring is beyond the point.

In conclusion, no one should pretend the SQE is beyond criticism when even the SRA admits there have been ‘teething problems’. At the same time, I don’t think anyone who wants the best for our sector to be satisfied pointing out concerns but not solutions.

My ten point plan for SQE reform is intended to provide some constructive ideas about how some improvements might be supported. It’s time for us all to work together for a common purpose and I hope a reset will be considered.

Thom Brooks is professor of law and government at Durham University.

Regulator takes steps to improve process

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has made several changes to the way students apply for reasonable adjustments during the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE).

The regulator has introduced a new application form with a series of targeted questions designed to minimise the need for follow-up clarification from students on their requirements. The SRA hopes this will shorten the time between a candidate submitting an application and receiving a proposal.

A range of reasonable adjustments are available to aspiring lawyers, such as extra time or a separate exam room for neurodiverse candidates, and enlarged or coloured assessment materials for those with visual impairments.

One of the other key changes is that candidates can now submit a single application for a reasonable adjustment plan covering both SQE1 and SQE2, removing the need for separate applications. This not only reduces the administrative burden, according to the SRA, but also provides students with “peace of mind” about their adjustments being in place for both assessments.

Another change is that approved reasonable adjustment plans will now be valid for two years, rather than being limited to individual assessment windows. This reduces the need for repeated applications and recognises the ongoing nature of many disabilities.

Aspiring lawyer voices frustration over transitional arrangements

We did everything right. We wrote the “Why law?” essays, jumped through the assessment centre hoops, charmed grad recruitment, and secured the training contract. Finally, we were on the path to qualification.

Except… the path moved. And the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) didn’t leave us a map.

‘Congrats on the TC! Now please start from scratch.’

When I was offered my training contract, I had already completed the LPC, the standard vocational route at the time. The understanding was simple: finish the LPC, complete your two years of training, and you’d qualify.

Then came the SQE.

At first, the SRA said LPC graduates didn’t need to sit the new exams — we could still qualify under transitional arrangements. Then firms began shifting their internal processes, and suddenly many of us were told we had to sit SQE2, regardless of the route we’d started on.

And here’s the problem: in my view the SQE2 exam is not designed for LPC graduates. Not even close.

An exam built for a different cohort

The SQE was introduced with big promises: to create a single, standardised path to qualification that would open the profession and level the playing field. Laudable goals. But in reality, LPC grads have been shoved awkwardly into a system that was never built with us in mind.

The SQE2 assumes that you’ve just done SQE1 — that your legal knowledge is fresh, and that you’ve studied the specific topics as defined by the SRA’s Functioning Legal Knowledge (FLK) framework. That’s what most prep courses are tailored for.

But we didn’t do SQE1. We did the LPC, which, while comprehensive, does not exactly mirror the SQE1 syllabus.

Yet no SQE2 prep course teaches the legal knowledge underpinning the assessments. Why? Because they assume you already know it from SQE1.

So, if you’re an LPC graduate, you’re on your own. There’s no formal refresher. No syllabus comparison. No bridging materials. Just skills-based prep with an occasional nod to legal content, but no real way of knowing whether your LPC knowledge actually aligns with the SQE’s expectations.

It’s like sitting a French oral exam where the marking scheme is based on Canadian French, but you learned Parisian French, and no one bothered to tell you the difference.

The numbers don’t lie

Let’s look at the data.

In the April 2024 SQE2 sitting, LPC grads had a 36% pass rate. In the July 2024 sitting, the figure was 44%.

Meanwhile, those who followed the full SQE route, including SQE1, passed at rates of 74% in July and 79% in April.

These aren’t small gaps. They’re gaping holes in the system.

And what they show is that despite having already completed a full-time vocational course (often costing up to £17,000), we’re still failing the final exam — not because we’re unprepared in general, but because the system isn’t built for us. The SRA has failed to think through the transition. If it had, LPC graduates wouldn’t be floundering in a system where the prep materials, course assumptions, and exam structures are all based on a path we didn’t take.

“Transitional arrangements” — in name only

The SRA says we can still qualify under transitional arrangements. In theory, that’s true. In practice, firms have moved on.

Many employers have now internalised the SQE as their formal qualification route and if your firm has adopted SQE2 as the final step, your only option is to sit the exam.

So, what do you do?

You fork out another £2,500–£4,000 for a prep course that doesn’t teach the law. You try to self-study the entire FLK syllabus, hoping that your LPC notes cover what the exam might ask. You sit an exam in which legal knowledge is assessed indirectly, through tasks like client interviews, legal drafting and advocacy, but where the underlying legal knowledge is critical to scoring well.

And then, like many of us, you fail. Not because you didn’t study. Not because you’re not competent. But because no one told you that the rules had changed.

A regulatory afterthought

The most frustrating part is that this was entirely avoidable. The SRA knew there would be thousands of LPC graduates still qualifying during the transition period. It could have:

Created bridging materials between the LPC and SQE1 syllabuses;

Encouraged prep providers to design tailored SQE2 courses for LPC grads;

Issued clearer guidance to firms about supporting trainees qualifying through the LPC route;

Provided realistic timelines and funding for those being forced to switch routes mid-way.

We are not the exception — we are the forgotten majority

LPC graduates are not a niche group. We’re thousands strong. Many of us have spent years, and small fortunes, training under a framework that was, until very recently, the only route to qualification. To be cast aside now, told to retake assessments that don’t match our training, and to foot the bill for a system change we didn’t ask for, feels not just unfair, it feels like neglect.

The SQE may well be the future. But we are still here. Still qualified. Still capable. Just not supported. It’s time for the SRA to admit it hasn’t thought this through. Because if the goal is to produce competent, confident solicitors, shouldn’t we start by giving them the tools to succeed?

Sat by 1,134 students

Yesterday, the Solicitors Qualifying Examination 2 (SQE2) results were released from the latest sitting, with three-quarters of candidates passing.

SQE2 was sat by 1,134 from late January to early February, according to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)’s latest report. 75% passed — exactly three-quarters — which is a slight dip from the record high last time, when 81% passed.

The 940 first-time candidates enjoyed a slightly higher pass rate, at 77%.

Another interesting statistic from this latest report showed that candidates who had not undertaken any qualifying work experience had a higher pass rate (81%) than those who had (75%). This might be explained by candidates having to balance work and study.

SQE2 comprises 16 exams aiming to test students’ ability to apply legal knowledge and show off their practical skills. Four are oral assessments, whilst 12 are written. Those taking SQE2 must first complete SQE1 — which most recently saw 56% pass, Legal Cheek reported.

Drafting and research skills appear to lag under new regime, according to exclusive Legal Cheek research

New research by Legal Cheek has found that trainees who have completed the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) appear to be falling short in core legal skills — such as drafting and legal research — in the eyes of law firms.

The results represent the views of 40 graduate recruitment and learning & development professionals at leading City and national law firms as well as the London offices of US firms. The SQE will be a key topic of discussion at today’s LegalEdCon 2025, Legal Cheek ‘s annual legal education and training conference, which wis attended by over 100 law firms as well as leading education providers and professional bodies.

One of the key differences between the SQE and Legal Practice Course (LPC) examinations is that the SQE purports to assess candidates at the level of a newly qualified (‘Day One’) solicitor, whereas the LPC was designed to prepare students for their first day as a trainee.

Despite this, only 7.5% of respondents feel SQE trainees have more legal knowledge than their LPC counterparts.

“We have found that the SQE trainees are not considered Day One solicitor ready from our firm’s point of view, despite the SQE 2 supposedly measuring this”, one graduate recruiter told us. “There is clearly a large gap between what the SRA deems as a Day One solicitor and what our firm does.”

Additionally, despite the closed-book method of SQE assessment, only 12.5% of those surveyed reported an improved ability to recall legal knowledge in their SQE trainees.

The research shows that there is a perception that SQE students are left under-prepared in core skill areas such as drafting and legal research. When asked whether SQE trainees’ legal writing and drafting skills are more advanced than LPC trainees’ at the same stage, not one respondent felt that they were. Forty-five percent disagreed with the statement, with 12.5% disagreeing strongly. When asked about legal research, only 5% said that SQE trainees were better equipped than their LPC counterparts.

This particular blindspot was the subject of several comments.

“Our SQE trainees generally do not have the same written abilities as our LPC trainees and we notice a marked difference in drafting ability,” wrote one respondent. Another reported that, “LPC students were far better at legal research and analysing problems. We are seeing more of a shift of learning to pass an exam rather than learning to become a lawyer.” Overall, it seemed SQE grads “have a much more academic focus than practical”.

When discussing the advantages the SQE gives trainees, “resilience” was the key word, mentioned in several responses. One L&D professional characterised SQE trainees as hard grafters who “seem to cope better with the transition to the training contract, in terms of workload and effort needed”.

However, the toughness of these exams has also raised concerns. “The strain of taking the SQE has been evident,” one respondent claimed, while another was troubled by “the pressures that come with the format of the exams and the impact that can have on our future trainees’ mental wellbeing”. One comment linked this mental strain to the SQE pass rates, which have been much lower than those on the LPC, “failing exams has had a considerable impact on mental health”.

It’s not just candidates who are affected by the higher number of failures on these exams. Graduate recruitment professionals also complained of the problems they face when future trainees fail to pass their exams. Some of these issues are exacerbated by the timings of SQE results, one respondent pointed out:

“SQE2 results being released so close to the traditional September training contract start date is particularly problematic, because there isn’t enough time to back-fill empty slots.”

“It is a frustrating challenge as we plan two years in advance for our trainee head-counts and are now suddenly having to be flexible at the last minute to postpone or pull forward start dates depending on whether people miss or fail an exam,” another told us.

Plus, these exam sittings don’t come cheap — as pointed out by one survey taker: “It’s also a huge cost to the firm.”

Company informs Legal Cheek that no questions generated by AI are used in SQE assessments

Kaplan’s use of AI for SQE “question development” has come under scrutiny amid a row in the US about California Bar exam questions being artificially generated.

A press statement from the California Bar earlier this week about scoring adjustments to the February bar exam claimed that some multiple-choice questions were “developed with the assistance of AI” before being reviewed “by content validation panels and a subject matter expert”.

The AI questions came from independent psychometricians, not Kaplan, which produces its own question sets for the same US exam.

Mary Basick, assistant dean at the University of California, Irvine, Law School, voiced her outrage in a LinkedIn post that has since gone viral: “This is unacceptable & utterly outrageous.” Others echoed her frustration in the comments. “Just when I thought this couldn’t get more outrageous,” one wrote. “Wow. That is just insane,” another added.

In the UK, where Kaplan develops and runs the SQE on behalf of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the company told Legal Cheek that AI may be used for “question development”, highlighting a page on its website that outlines its commitment to using it in a “positive and ethical” way.

A spokesperson for Kaplan said:

“Kaplan employs a team of solicitors who write, edit and review SQE questions. All questions go through rigorous drafting, editing and review stages involving a minimum of three solicitors of England and Wales. AI may be used as one of a number of tools to assist the team with question development, in line with our published commitment statement around the use of AI.”

They added:

“To be clear, we have not used any questions generated by AI in any SQE assessments. All questions used in SQE assessments are drafted by solicitors of England and Wales. We have recently started using the AI tool within Lexis for legal research and associated tasks. And, in addition to our established quality assurance checks, we are starting to trial AI to provide an extra layer of quality assurance. This is on top of quality assurance processes that are already in place.”

Kaplan’s use of AI comes against a backdrop of past issues with the delivery and administration of the SQE — most notably in April last year, when 175 students were mistakenly told they had failed, leading to some aspiring solicitors having their training contract offers revoked.

It also follows the recent news that SQE exam fees are set to rise for a third time, with the SRA — which partners with Kaplan to deliver the SQE — citing inflation as one of the reasons.

Up from a record low of 44%

The report on the latest SQE1 sitting has been released, showing an overall pass rate of 56% — up slightly on last summer’s record low of 44%.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) reported that 6,718 candidates completed both parts of SQE1 in the January sitting this year.

Of these, 5,908 were first-time candidates, achieving a slightly higher pass rate of 60%. Interestingly, qualified lawyers — presumably mostly those qualified in overseas jurisdictions — had a lower pass rate than those not yet qualified: 52% compared to 62%.

In February, Legal Cheek reported a record high pass rate for SQE2, at 81%. Candidates must pass SQE1 to sit SQE2.

Earlier this week, the Legal Services Board announced it has given the SRA until Autumn to publish pass rate information from across the different SQE providers. This has come after a series of delays.

Last week, Legal Cheek highlighted one candidate’s experience after failing the challenging SQE where the top 20 firm which had sponsored her as an incoming trainee was seeking to clawback funding – on top of rescinding her training contract.

SRA delay draws criticism

The Legal Services Board (LSB) has raised concerns over the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) failure to publish SQE provider pass rates, setting a deadline of Autumn 2025 for the data to be released.

The delay was highlighted in a new performance report by the LSB, which reviewed the solicitors’ regulator’s performance over the past year.

The LSB said it is “concerned about the SRA’s failure to publish provider pass-rate data for Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) training providers, as well as other concerns about SQE including affordability, design and quality”.

“The SRA’s failure to publish provider pass-rate data, despite it making a commitment to do so, means that SQE candidates do not have all the information they need to make informed choices,” the LSB continued. “We expect the SRA to remedy this situation as soon as possible and by no later than autumn of 2025.”

Legal Cheek reported earlier this year that this SRA still wasn’t in position to go public with the provider pass rates, citing “unexpected problems” with the data.

The regulator initially pledged to publish pass rates by training provider in “late 2023”, but missed this deadline, blaming a lack of “sufficient data”.

The LSB’s new report uses a traffic light system to assess regulators across three categories: well-led, regulatory approach, and operational delivery. The SRA received a red rating for operational delivery. Similarly, the Bar Standards Board (BSB) was rated red for both operational delivery and well-led.

Failed challenging exams, leading to the withdrawal of TC offer

A City lawyer has shared how a future trainee reached out for advice and support after her firm said it was rescinding her training contract and attempting to recover the costs of her SQE prep course, after she failed to pass the challenging assessments.

Chris Lee, a real estate lawyer, shared a now-viral LinkedIn post about two future trainees who had reached out to him after their training contracts were withdrawn due to SQE failures. One aspiring solicitor, referred to as “Amy”, told Lee that her firm went a step further — informing her they intended to recover the tuition fees and maintenance grants they had paid out, totalling a sum “in excess of five figures”.

Lee, sharing Amy’s story at her request, explains that she has not only lost her training contract — along with the £90,000 typically earned by trainees over two years at the firm — but now also finds herself suddenly unemployed and in debt.

The lawyer warns that the professional consequences can be severe. Without savings, if Amy is forced to declare bankruptcy, it’s unlikely she would be able to practise as a solicitor.

The unnamed firm, described as “comfortably in the UK’s top 20” by revenue, does have the right to rescind training contracts, Lee acknowledges, though he notes that clawback is “very unusual”. He adds in the comments that Amy is “still in dialogue” with the firm.

The situation set out by Lee has garnered strong views, with over 400 reactions and some 50 comments. One CMS associate urges Amy to “name and shame”, whilst another commenter notes this makes the firm look “vindictive” and “cruel”.

Another trainee has highlighted the “luck” involved with passing the SQE with pass rates for SQE1 and SQE2 currently sitting at 44% and 81% respectively

Lee’s post subsequently made its way to the message boards of Reddit, where reactions were just as strong. Users described the firm’s actions as “heartless”, “disgraceful”, and “shortsighted”, with calls to “name and shame”—and one commenter branding the clawback “absolute scumbaggery”.

It’s unclear from the post how many attempts Amy took to pass the challenging exams, but law firms made headlines last year for their varied responses to candidates who didn’t succeed on their first try. Some firms were praised for their supportive approach, offering trainees multiple attempts. Others, however, faced heavy criticism for rescinding offers from those who failed to make the grade at the first attempt.

Nazarii Pylypchuk ‘happy and grateful’ after landing BARBRI award

A Ukrainian lawyer has been awarded an SQE scholarship from BARBRI for his vlog exploring the role of emotional intelligence in the legal profession.

Nazarii Pylypchuk video tackled the issue from both a personal and professional standpoint, exploring why soft skills like empathy, self-awareness and relationship-building are essential in today’s legal world.

Speaking to Legal Cheek, Pylypchuk said he felt “happy and grateful” for the opportunity. “This scholarship will significantly reduce the financial burden on my path toward becoming a solicitor and bring me closer to my goal,” he said.

Having graduated from law school in Ukraine in 2021, Pylypchuk now works as a senior associate specialising in M&A, joint ventures and venture capital. He’s also a Ukrainian advocate, qualified to represent clients in complex court cases and criminal law matters. His journey in law began early — he secured an internship with a major Ukrainian law firm while still in his second year of university.

Looking ahead, Pylypchuk hopes to qualify as a solicitor of England and Wales via the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE), enhancing his ability to serve clients internationally. He believes that, once the Russian war against Ukraine ends, the country will become a hub for investment and dealmaking. “I anticipate significant investments in the restoration of Ukraine. This is likely to result in many M&A transactions, and it is here that I believe my dual qualification will yield great returns,” he explained.

The scholarship was awarded as part of BARBRI’s latest competition, which invited aspiring solicitors to reflect on the role of emotional intelligence in legal practice through a video submission. Entrants also attended Legal Cheek’s recent event, ‘Beyond the law firm: Why qualifying as an in-house lawyer might be right for you’.

Joanne White, senior tutor at BARBRI and one of this year’s judges in the competition, said:

“It has been a pleasure for BARBRI to collaborate with Legal Cheek on our BARBRI x Legal Cheek Video Competition scholarship prize. This prize continues to play an important role in BARBRI’s mission to enable students to demonstrate ambition and reach their potential within the legal profession. As always, the standard was high. In the end, Nazarii’s ability to demonstrate the extent to which emotional intelligence should play a role in legal practice, by analysing the topic from both a professional and personal standpoint, just edged the other entries.”

To find out more about how to prepare for qualifying via the SQE, check out BARBRI’s website.