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.”
