As stated above, the writer of the article completed the LPC before the SQE was introduced. There was no SQE course available at the time of them sitting the LPC. So it is not a matter of completing the LPC after the SQE was fully in place, which I agree is a problematic decision.

The writer of the article completed the LPC before the SQE was introduced. There was no SQE course available at the time of sitting the LPC. So it is not a matter of completing the LPC after the SQE was fully in place, which I agree is a problematic decision.

The SQE was introduced in 2021, and it’s now 2025. If you chose to sit the LPC after the SQE was already in place, it’s unreasonable to complain about being left behind.

The risks of pursuing the LPC after SQE’s introduction were clear from the outset. That’s why I made a conscious decision to take the SQE instead of the LPC, knowing firms might still require SQE2.

It’s worth noting that SQE1 has roughly a 50% first-time pass rate, and SQE2 about 80%, meaning the overall chance of passing both on the first attempt is around 40% – similar to the success rates for LPC candidates sitting SQE2 without having done SQE1. So LPC grads are not inherently disadvantaged.

If you opted for a route that was clearly being phased out, that responsibility lies with you.

(Obviously, this doesn’t apply to those who completed the LPC before the SQE was introduced – you have every right to complain.)

Yet, the majority of law firms say they do not recognise QWE unless it a TC. Can’t accept one part of the system and not the other. Make it make sense.

Firms seem to have chosen an unexpected third route of requiring LPC grads to do the SQE2 and then starting them on the usual TC. This is what is messing up the whole plan here and why the author is facing this problem.

There’s an angry LPC student who believes they have been short changed by the system but the anger is misdirected.

LPC students have not been forgotten by the system which never did require them to do the SQE2 exams.

It’s their choice of employer, the firms, who seem to have imposed this, seemingly because their HR teams don’t want the trouble of administering an intake with diverse qualifications… time for a new HR team.

This is a requirement by your prospective firm. They want you to do it.

If that is the TC you have accepted, then it is something you have agreed to… presumably they will like most firms also pay for you to do this.

Very true that the focus is on “testing memory and ability to regurgitate an unconscious stream of syllabus”, despite claims that it is on skills. One cannot demonstrate skills without acquiring a massive breadth of knowedge across the tested legal areas, that one was more realistically tested on in the LPC in open book exams.

To explain, people who work in Recruitment, HR etc tend not to be solicitors. Most will have studied the professional exams for HR – CIPD. You would only take the SQE if you intended to be a solicitor. You don’t need to sit these exams to work in HR/Recruitment.

I’m not naive your insinuation, but it’s not right way to think about it. People will sit the relevant exams for their profession.

Did Julie Brannan post this? Lol. Clearly the poster is a bit out of touch with market regulation vs reality.

The SQE is not at all what is described in this post – it might be how it’s presented to the market but it’s far from the truth. Classroom based education and examination is definitely NOT what increases standards of solicitors (regardless of LPC or SQE). You will only start becoming a good solicitor no earlier than 5PQE and once you have countless experiences of being belittled by clients, bullied by seniors/partners and learning from failures in your legal advice. Those are the real tests of standards.

Grad Wreck, have you sat either of these exams?

You’ve mentioned something there which I cannot get my head around.

Regarding the SQE exams and one reason why a student might wish to complete the LPC instead, your comment is “aside from a limited number with specific reasons e.g. neurodiverse candidates who struggle with SBAQs”.

Now, we all know the SQE hasn’t achieved its goal of opening up the profession to underrepresented groups. In fact, it has created more barriers and made it harder for certain groups, especially those with certain disabilities (as you have pointed out).

Given that this is not a secret and anyone with half a brain can plainly see it therefore grossly disadvantages such people, including many others with different conditions which equally do not mix well with such exams, why has there been no vocalisation, backlash, or otherwise, from law firms? Shouldn’t the very people saying they champion inclusivity and equality be greatly concerned about the effect this will have on who is dissuaded from applying for a training contract?

It seems to me to be such a poor show from the SRA, and certainly not an issue which would not have been within their contemplation when the SQE was constructed and going through the various consultation periods. Why is this not an issue which is receiving the attention it deserves? It strikes me that there will likely be many extraordinarily gifted people who are being put off of applying for TC’s precisely because of this plainly unfair testing method the SRA has decided to use.

LPC completed in August 2021!

Coming from a Law Firm Early Careers perspective, the reason is that it would be completely impractical for the business to try and manage trainees qualifying through two wildly different methods in the same cohort. The SQE and LPC have very different supervision and sign off requirements (as well as trying to factor in PSC for LPC grads), it’s simply not feasible for most firms to balance this. We’d obviously prefer to take candidates straight from LPC without having to fund an SQE2 and put the future Trainee under additional stress, but the SRA’s transitional arrangements don’t really give us any other practical options.
I have huge sympathy for LPC grads caught in the early transition who have been searching for a TC for a while, but I do question why anyone (aside from a limited number with specific reasons e.g. neurodiverse candidates who struggle with SBAQs) would have done an LPC past around 2023 when it was clear that LPC style TCs were few and far between. I think that the SRA’s messaging, as well as Law Schools continuing to sell LPCs are partially responsible here. It seems irresponsible to allow large numbers of students to do LPC when they have little chance of qualifying through that alone.
It’s unfortunately clear that the SQE isn’t really working for anyone.

Nicely laid out post. Competent human here and yourself.

It’s reasonable to be frustrated with the woke drivel that deskwarmers have had drive forwards the SQE. That said, if you apply to firms that aren’t the worst offenders (won’t name – but you’ve had your chances to improve) you are less likely to have the worst of the SQE issues. I did the LPC and you can get a distinction with legacy notes to hand. I don’t think the SQE is producing better intakes for firms – this view is shared with partners. It’s dishonest to stand by the claim of the SRA that it’s to improve access to the professsion.

1. The SRA is a regulatory body. They are there to upkeep standards in the profession not get grads jobs. They set the standard and us graduates have to reach it.

2. Speaking of setting standards, the SRA has made it clear that the SQE will be examined to a higher standard than the LPC. So LPC Grads fall into two groups:-

2.1. You’ve just passed LPC. Your legal knowledge is fresh. You should be expecting to be examined on things you may not have previously covered and prepare appropriately; or

2.2 You took the risk of sitting your LPC before securing a TC and have been chasing one for years. In that case your legal knowledge is likely out of date anyway.

3. The SRA doesn’t provide preparatory materials for any students and I’m not sure why LPC grade should be privileged with ‘bridging materials’. Admittedly LPC grads have already invested money in their vocational diploma but this means they should be ahead and not behind the curve.

4. SQE is a self-study qualification. If you paid for a prep course and it was inadequate to prepare you I think that is between you and the prep course provider, not the regulator who sets the exams.

5. Finally, the transitional arrangements do actually work. You don’t have to have sat the SQE2 to qualify – as a previous poster mentioned it is the firms that are imposing this requirement. Surely your truck should be with them.

TL;DR the SQE is about simultaneously raising standards and opening up the profession. The only way you do that is by more rigorous exams, and LPC grads should be aware of this. If your firm imposes an additional requirement to your TC then that’s between you and your firm, and it’s up to you to figure out what you need to succeed and enlist the help of your firm to achieve it. You don’t have to take the contract. If you’re investing in prep courses that don’t prepare you, that is between you and your provider.

Don’t blame the regulator because you didn’t pass their exams. Others have done it and are doing it.