There are 40 week courses for SQE1. Barbri for example

Is this really a worthwhile use of your evening? Insulting other people online and bringing nothing constructive to the conversation? As for the username you’ve picked…good grief.

Your username is pitifully ironic.

Another utter moron.

You utter moron. If you can’t understand how someone who fails an exam to allow them to bring in £££ results in a loss of the £££ spent to train them up, then you should be barred from working in the profession.

Stay retired.

Dave the accountant, you are clearly not nearly as clever as you think.

My firm told us future trainees that when we sign contracts to pass first time, they take on a case by case basis including using data shared by course provider around how many hours of study, how many mock questions practised etc. There were a couple in my intake who failed first sitting and didn’t have their contacts withdrawn because circs didn’t support such a harsh approach. Is it feasible Amy was subject to a review, they discovered she wasn’t putting in the effort and so this is a kack handed way of throwing the book? Just noting that all these responses making the firm evil and the trainee blameless are unlikely to know the whole picture.

I passed mine with 3 days of prep. One day for FLK 1, one day for FLK 2 and one day for revision. You don’t need 3 weeks to prep. Some people just don’t have it. Btw My pet raccoon passed SQE with one week of prep. So you get my point.

Why are you assuming the relevant candidate was young?

You would think something like this though would be mentioned in the prospective’s training contract offer letter and triple underlined for their attention?

At that point, if the individual decided it was too high risk, they could have walked and continued looking elsewhere. And if they decided to go for it, they would have known in advance that it was a risk of not passing the SQE first time.

To land it on them with any prior warning is simply insane. It is a sh**showing from the firm though, to take this kind of approach. Way to bury someone just starting out.

Centralised standards are hardly laughable.

Are you bothered about the standard of food hygiene where you eat out? Or the quality of alcohol in the drink you may have?

Ensuring all solicitors have ‘made’ a uniformed standard is not laughable. It also gives objective comparables and an opportunity for people to excel.

DEI and MERITOCRACY win

Nope.. no course provider starts SQE1 in September for exams the following July; it’s a September start for January exam sittings. That would absolutely not have been “sprung on you” so please don’t lie for the sake of it. And which course provider were you with??

I really hate seeing the pressure that aspiring lawyers are subjected to nowadays. I’m out of practice, but, if I were her, I’d be researching Class 2 presumed undue influence, if that’s still going nowadays. It may not be.

On this basis no one should pursue a tenant who can’t pay their rent on the grounds that it is immoral.

We life in a capital society which we encourage. Indeed had this trainee passed and qualified they would be part of rich lawyers of the future… who will pursue debts on behalf of clients regardless of whether it is moral to do so or not.

No, why should firms have to commit to paying almost £7,000 per candidate. Whilst I understand where you’re coming from, this would just reduce the amount of TC offers and force more people to have to self-fund. The exam itself needs to be revised..

Not sure the clients will care. The firm have shown themselves to be heartless moral vacuums with no interest in anything that’s not money.

The average PE partner/Petrostate SWF boss will just think “fair play, my kind of people”.