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.

Why understanding values, challenging stereotypes and fostering two-way learning is key to retaining the next generation of lawyers

A recent survey revealed that younger generations are demanding more than ever from their employers. Beyond good pay and a safe, non-toxic workplace, Gen Z and millennial workers are looking for flexibility, a sense of purpose, and genuine support for their wellbeing.

In this article, Laveen Ladharam, a corporate senior associate at an international law firm, and Hannah Kosky, a paralegal at the same firm and a practising psychotherapist, explore how City law firms can better support and engage younger lawyers from these generations. They draw on their experience in the legal industry and Hannah’s work in private practice, where she provides therapy to young professionals and delivers mental health workshops to law firms.

The problem

The survey, conducted by Deloitte, reveals that Gen Z and millennials place a strong emphasis on work-life balance, ethical leadership, and mental health. Yet in practice, many trainees and junior lawyers continue to face long, unpredictable hours and often feel disconnected from their work. The issue isn’t that Gen Z expects a strict 9–5 schedule—they simply want to understand how their efforts contribute to the bigger picture.

What complicates matters is that today’s junior lawyers are entering the profession at a uniquely difficult time.

Financially, these lawyers face high rents, high taxes, high transport costs and student loan repayments on top of trying to achieve life goals like saving up for a house. It’s no wonder that the Big 4 outfit listed financial concerns as a key worry for Gen Z and millennial workers.

But it’s more than just money. Millennial and Gen Z workers want their work to be meaningful and want to continue investing in themselves. Conversely, there is also a focus on work-life balance as the pandemic prompted reflection on the role work should play in a person’s life.

Unlike previous generations who often aimed to stay put and climb the ladder within a single firm, younger workers are less afraid to move on if a firm does not meet their needs, whether it is pay, a healthy work environment, the chance to learn or to make an impact. Firms must adapt.

What can be done?

We have spotted the issues, but what are the answers?

Some, like pay, can only be addressed with money. Others can be addressed by taking a different approach.

1. Removing stereotypes

Lawyers are clever and hard-working but there is a tendency to view Gen Z as the “snowflake generation” who are demanding, lazy, tech-obsessed, and easily offended. A survey from 2023 found that three-quarters of managers and business leaders view Gen Z as more challenging to work with than other generations.

This is unfair. Junior lawyers have succeeded at school, done well at university and generally want to make an impact. However, because these employees are young and inexperienced, they have much to learn before they succeed in law. The challenge for employers is how to harness the talent and drive of their younger colleagues whilst also meeting their own business needs.

The Deloitte survey smashes these stereotypes. Instead of “snowflakes” Gen Z and millennials are “focused on learning.” Indeed, Gen Z and millennials chose employers because they offer “learning and development” and “opportunities to progress.” And while being “tech-obsessed”, these younger workers are concerned about dealing with future challenges, such as AI.

Further, while Gen Z and millennial workers stated that “work/life balance” was a priority, it is noteworthy that these workers wanted to use that work/life balance to do something that they felt gave them meaning. Rather than “lazy”, it suggests that these workers are eager to contribute and make a difference.

From Hannah’s experience as a therapist, stereotypes mean that we’re more likely to judge people unfairly, interpret their behaviour through a distorted lens and limit their opportunities without realising it. Over time, this can result in unhappy staff and an unhappy workplace.

One solution is to ensure that managers are self-aware. Unconscious bias training is often unfairly maligned, but it is useful in revealing how stereotypes and perceptions of colleagues can influence work allocation, career progression and, ultimately, harmony within a team. By challenging and addressing these assumptions, firms can create and reinforce a positive work environment.

2. Meaningful work

Most young professionals want their work to matter. A sense of progress and impact is, therefore, incredibly motivating but can be rare in junior legal roles.

The term “meaningful” can, ironically, be quite vague since people are motivated by different things.

For some, it might mean making a social impact through their work which is easier for some firms than others. For instance, a law firm that works exclusively for oil and gas majors may be a difficult place for an environmentally conscious lawyer to make a social impact in their practice.

On an individual level, however, “meaning” can be ensuring that lawyers don’t feel alienated from their labour.

Trainees can sometimes be left completing isolated tasks at the last moment without any context. If this happens too often, this can lead to disconnection and eventually burnout. Sometimes this is a necessary part of the job. Law is a service industry, after all, and sometimes clients have demands that can only be dealt with at the last moment by junior lawyers.

However, when managing staff, supervisors should make the time to check in with their junior colleagues and involve juniors in post-deal or post-case reviews.

More fundamentally, it means providing trainees with an understanding of how their work fits into a bigger picture, giving them a sense of ownership with a task and ensuring that trainees can have the opportunity to grow. It also means providing staff with honest and constructive feedback and, where merited, praising them for a job well done.

3. Mentoring

One finding from the survey was that millennials and Gen Z want to “learn from their bosses but that these bosses miss the mark in relation to their development.” Gen Z and millennials want to develop their technical knowledge and soft-skills and believe that their managers should be better placed to help with this.

One of the most effective changes a firm can make is increasing interaction between junior and senior lawyers. When partners make the effort to work alongside junior colleagues whether by sharing an office or “sitting in the trenches” in an open-plan office, it builds trust and makes partner seem more approachable. It also encourages more people to come into the office.

Additionally, mentoring or ‘buddy’ schemes can foster learning, career development and connection with team members from different generations. The presence of senior lawyers shouldn’t be intimidating; it should be inspiring. Open communication and active mentoring should be embedded into the culture, not an optional extra.

4. Real mental health support (including therapy)

The survey found that 52% of Gen Z and 58% of millennials rate their mental well-being as “good” or “very good.” 40% of Gen Z and 34% of millennials say they feel stressed or anxious all or most of the time and about a third attribute their job as a major source of stress. Factors that exacerbate these are long hours, a lack of recognition and toxic workplaces.

The legal profession has improved in the way that it treats mental health since Laveen started as a trainee in 2015. Many firms now provide employee assistance packages (EAPs) and private medical insurance which include mental health support.

That support, however, remains surface-level. While offering EAPs or mindfulness sessions can be a step forward, many lawyers simply don’t have the time to access therapy services because their work is so busy and/or because they are reluctant to tell their managers that they need help.

Firms should put clear structures in place and actively communicate that employees are encouraged to connect with colleagues, get some fresh air during their lunch breaks, or attend therapy without guilt or stigma.

Final thoughts

This article itself is the result of a millennial lawyer and a Gen Z paralegal collaborating together and learning from each other, which is a good analogue for how firms can approach their junior lawyers.

Younger lawyers are entering the profession in a world shaped by economic uncertainty, digital transformation, and evolving ideas about work and wellbeing.

While they may respond differently or challenge traditional norms, the solution isn’t to dismiss them as “snowflakes.” Instead, by understanding the context in which they’re starting out, and fostering genuine two-way learning between juniors and seniors, firms have the chance to build stronger, more dynamic teams where people at every level can thrive.

Laveen Ladharam is a senior associate in the corporate and commercial team at the London office of an international law firm. Hannah Kosky is a paralegal at the same firm and also works as a counselling psychotherapist in private practice.

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?

Law grad and real estate paralegal, Dara Antova, shares the benefits and risks of embracing social media in the legal industry

Over the past decade, a new breed of legal professionals has emerged — ‘lawfluencers’. These modern-day legal commentators have amassed thousands of followers across platforms like LinkedIn, Instagram, and TikTok, and their numbers only continue to rise. From sharing insights into their daily work routines to documenting their journeys into the legal profession and discussing legal concepts, lawfluencers are reshaping how the industry interacts with the public.

When used strategically, social media can be a powerful tool for legal professionals, revolutionising the way they promote themselves and their firms. It provides a platform for networking, education, and community, allowing lawyers to cultivate a personal brand and expand their professional reach. Firms, too, can leverage their employees’ online presence to showcase their workplace culture and unique strengths. However, social media is a double-edged sword – while it offers substantial benefits, it also comes with risks that legal professionals cannot afford to ignore.

Many perceptions of lawyers are shaped by television shows like Suits and endless Quora discussions debating whether the legal profession is as glamorous as it appears on screen further supports this portrayal. The reality, at least in the UK, is starkly different. While the legal profession remains fascinating and rewarding, it is far from the fictional courtrooms. More importantly, in an era where every online action is scrutinised, real-life lawyers-especially those with an active social media presence-have far less room for error than their TV counterparts.

Social media is constantly evolving, making it difficult to pinpoint what is definitively right or wrong when it comes to online behaviour. While the internet offers a range of courses on professional social media etiquette, tailored even to the legal profession, the lines remain blurred. These courses encourage lawyers to think critically about their online presence and highlight the professional and ethical dilemmas that can arise from seemingly harmless posts.

The benefits

LinkedIn, for example, has cemented itself as the go-to platform for professional networking, career growth, and industry discussions. It allows lawyers to connect with colleagues, find job opportunities and establish business relationships. Some legal professionals have become so influential on LinkedIn that their engagement levels rival those of mainstream social media celebrities.

In a previous Legal Cheek article, Simon Marshall, CEO of TBD Marketing, describes this phenomenon: “Super-influencers are rewriting the rulebook, turning personal engagement into measurable business value. Rather than holding these rising stars back with corporate communications rules and strict brand guidelines, firms should see them as brand ambassadors, harnessing their influence to amplify the company’s reach.”

In today’s digital landscape, a strong social media presence can be an asset, helping lawyers distinguish themselves and showcase their passions, interests, and values. While law firms are ultimately businesses focused on profitability, they also recognise the value of individuality. A robotic, personality-free workforce is hardly appealing. Lawyers who can voice their opinions-within reason-on relevant topics and use their platforms to inform and assist others are increasingly valued.

The risks

Despite the many advantages of social media, lawyers must tread carefully. Under the SRA Code of Conduct, legal professionals are expected to uphold the highest standards of professionalism. The code outlines the ethical expectations placed on solicitors. Even though social media is often considered a personal space, if a lawyer’s online activity breaches the SRA’s standards, the consequences can be severe-whether fairly or unfairly.

In some cases, social media missteps have led to disciplinary action, including dismissals. Importantly, this applies even if the content was posted outside of working hours. If your firm has a social media policy, following it to the letter is essential. If they don’t have one, you might want to suggest they implement one-for their sake and yours. A well-defined policy protects both employees and the firm’s reputation. However, even in the absence of an official policy, certain online behaviours can still lead to disciplinary consequences.

If you aspire to be a lawfluencer, or already are one, think before you post. Ask yourself: Could your social media activity be considered serious enough to damage your firm’s reputation? Are you unintentionally providing legal advice online? This could land you in trouble.

Another misconception is that privacy settings provide complete protection. They don’t. Once something is posted online, you lose control over where it may end up. Screenshots, reposts, and shares mean that even deleted content can continue to circulate indefinitely.

In the UK, employees who believe they have been unfairly dismissed due to social media activity can take their case to the Employment Tribunal (ET). The ET evaluates whether the dismissal was justified by considering factors such as the employer’s social media policy, the severity of the post in question, and whether proper disciplinary procedures were followed.

Past tribunal cases have produced mixed outcomes. In some instances, dismissals were upheld when employees’ posts were deemed damaging to the employer’s reputation. In others, the tribunal ruled in favour of employees, finding that the employer had overreacted or failed to follow a fair disciplinary process.

How to embrace the trend

Regardless of your stance on lawfluencers, they are undeniably on the rise. For law firms, this presents an opportunity to position themselves competitively by embracing the trend rather than resisting it. For individual lawyers, the decision to build an online presence is personal. You won’t necessarily miss out on career growth if you choose to remain offline, but for those interested in speaking engagements, networking events, or industry recognition, social media can be a game-changer.

However, lawfluencers must remain honest and transparent. Some portray a picture-perfect legal career, showcasing an effortless work-life balance that may not reflect reality. While success stories are inspiring, it’s crucial to acknowledge that not every experience is smooth sailing. Aspiring lawyers often look up to these influencers, so maintaining authenticity is essential.

To post or not to post? Social media is a powerful tool that can either elevate or jeopardise a legal career. It offers incredible opportunities for business development and personal branding, but it also comes with responsibilities. Lawyers must strike a balance between engaging with their audience and ensuring their online activity aligns with professional standards.

So, before you hit post, ask yourself: Would I be comfortable defending this post or comment in front of my firm’s managing partner- or worse, in a disciplinary hearing? If the answer is no, it’s probably best left in the drafts.

Dara Antova is currently a real estate paralegal, after graduating from her LLB with first class honours last summer.

Legendary ex-Magic Circle dealmaker Alan Paul advises new solicitors to resist the ‘powerful drug’ of six-figure salaries and remain true to their values

Keeping the “billable hour” and “target hours”, as well as salary rates, in perspective may be one of the toughest challenges facing lawyers at the major US and UK-based law firms in London. And particularly for young lawyers in the early years of legal practice and those contemplating a career in law.

Why is that perspective important? It is important because, to make a successful, and crucially an enjoyable, career in such firms and elsewhere, constantly concerning oneself with achieving a target for hours spent will take the eyes off the real ball; that is the production of high quality work, total integrity and the best interests of the client, which always have to be the critical driver of a lawyer’s endeavours.

Legal Cheek published exclusive research on the average hours at big London law firms which was subsequently picked up by several newspaper journalists including Jonathan Ames, legal editor of The Times. He has also written about how young lawyers approach their hours recording and how their lives are being purchased in articles in April and May 2024. Bearing in mind that salaries for newly qualified lawyers at these firms range between £150,000 and £180,000, predicted to reach £200,000 before long, a clarity of purpose is needed on the part of the young worker.

If a target of hours or money becomes a primary driver to go to work in a top law firm, that will not prove a strong foundation. Much better to have your own principles for how you work than be swept along by another tide.

Every day is Christmas, almost

Such salaries are by any normal measure absurd. They put these earners in the top 1% bracket of earners in the UK, and nobody would dispute that a newly qualified solicitor in such a firm has almost no experience and little competence to provide the advice their clients often require: rather, as they learn on the job, they depend on more senior lawyers, maybe partners but often lawyers of with a few years of qualification, to check their work and supervise generally. Some say, it is reported, that the bulk of the work they do is mind numbingly boring, but generalisations are dangerous and the range of experiences of such lawyers will vary enormously. Any single lawyer’s experience is partly a matter of good fortune and may depend on the partners they work with most. Comparing pay across sectors is complex but when mid twenty-year-olds are earning more than experienced doctors or scientists questions will be asked.

Salaries in any industry are a function of the relevant market, what can be afforded and supply and demand. It would be foolish to assume that law firms truly want to pay these enormous salaries or view them as a statement of true worth. In London now there are over 100 US origin law firms, and some like Latham & Watkins are of a size and nature that they are very established UK firms in their own right. Although some of these firms have expanded by merger with established London firms, which in their turn disappeared, they have generally created a demand for many more good lawyers in London: the magic circle firms have not materially shrunk.

Accordingly, there is huge competition to recruit and retain the best talent out of aspiring young lawyers. The big US firms have been prepared to offer the eye watering salaries to tempt lawyers away from traditional London firms, who have increased pay to compete. This is market forces in action, producing arguably an astonishing outcome from an independent outsider’s viewpoint, but it is reality for now. It would be wrong to criticise a young lawyer taking these shillings: the cost of living in London is so high and such salaries may enable 25-year-olds to buy their own home: this is Christmas every day in one sense. But it smacks of a false market with consequences and risks. And long hours in big City law firms have been a feature for the last 40 years.

A tough working week and targets

Legal Cheek’s research puts average weekly hours of work for young lawyers in these firms at between 55 and 70 depending on the firm. That ignores weekends. So, the average weekly total is a few hours more as weekend work is common. So that is between 11 and 13 hours work per working day. Averages of course are only that. Some lawyers will regularly work more hours and some less in any firm. A transaction can require a wipe out of a week on occasions. And the impact these hours have on quality of life will depend among other things on the quality and culture of the local team the lawyer is part of, as well as the attitude of the lawyer themselves. Some are happy in the long hours’ environment, especially if camaraderie is good, at least for a while. There is no doubt that these are long hours, but other professions require long hours too; also, hardworking people who are unskilled work very long hours regularly to make ends meet for their families, perhaps with more than one job, and in these other cases the pay is far short of the lawyers’ salaries.

Law firms commonly have target hours of billable work for lawyers. The reports indicate that for UK origin firms that target is likely a minimum of about 1,800, and at the US origin law firms about 2,000. A lawyer depends on the employer, and in any case the partners for whom the lawyer primarily works providing the work to meet at least the target. But if the employer fails to provide sufficient work, how can the target be met?

In the April article referred to above, a RollOnFriday survey was reported to show that a substantial number of young lawyers “pad” their time recording, with a number admitting to inventing hours worked which in fact had not been worked. Essentially it showed too, and anecdotal evidence confirms this, that a number of lawyers may spend more time on tasks than may really be needed in order to meet targets. The principle that works expands to fill the time available can be seen in spades if the culture is one which values time spent as a measure of performance. It is useless on its own as such a measure: context and other factors must leaven that assessment.

But a more sinister concern is being highlighted. Padding out time recorded is to seek to deceive the employer. If that time is intended to be billable to clients, then in addition it is in effect an attempt at deceiving the client and obtaining money through that deceit. Does that sound like, or close to, theft? If the firm is aware of it, then it is complicit. There are reports that clients may not care if they feel they get value for money, but that misses the major point. The most important responsibility of a lawyer is to act professionally in the conduct of business, with total integrity. Once a lawyer believes deception is ok, then that fundamental requirement is absent, and it could lead to all sorts of poor judgements, let alone malpractice.

Second, when representing a client, it is the lawyer’s duty to act in the client’s best interests: a better outlook to billing that client would be to act as efficiently as possible treating that client’s money and resources as carefully as one would one’s own. A constant eye on maximising billable time and being a slave to targets is wholly inconsistent with that concept.

Target hours are a major management tool if the firms concerned charge their clients largely based on hours spent on the job. However, a billable hour is a product, nothing more. It is a product of doing what is needed to service the client’s requirements. If one sees the hour as a product, not a driver, its importance will be kept in perspective. The lawyer’s approach to the work must be determined by the lawyer’s principles.

Firms may also impose revenue and profit targets on teams and partners. Of course, achieving good profits is vital for all businesses and a law firm will perceive a need to ensure its profitability matches its peer group, not least because, if it fails to, then partners may be more inclined to leave to more profitable firms. However, these targets, if not kept in perspective, also can deflect from the core drivers of being a good lawyer — quality, integrity and clients’ interests. Revenue and profit are again a product not behaviours, and behaviours drive the product.

No serfdom

It is reported that some young lawyers receiving the enormous salaries alluded to consider that, if the firm is willing to shell out these sums, then it is entitled to demand as much work as it likes. If the employing firm or partners view associates in that way, they are wrong. If associates view themselves that way, they are making a mistake. Pay is very relevant, but, if it is the driver of culture and used as the key motivator, it will prove to be a foundation of straw. Whatever the rewards, it cannot be acceptable that work produces misery or ill health. Working as a lawyer should not be serfdom, and responsibility to ensure that is not the case rests with law firm partners and the associates themselves.

Lawyers need to be resilient and take responsibility for themselves and their wellbeing too. One of the principles which guides an approach to work could be ensuring a balance. If a lawyer starts to think they must do whatever is demanded, that they are owned, important self-esteem will be diminished. Getting exhausted helps nobody and is a problem for everybody. And if any partner in a firm treats an associate without care and respect for their wellbeing, perhaps they need some further education. Good associates who produce good quality work, efficiently and who are affable, liked by clients and colleagues, will always be busy as they are the first port of call of partners. So, concentration on nurturing those characteristics and core principles, rather than worrying about pay and hours, may be the best route to delivering the product.

The £150k-200k salary for newly qualified lawyers is a powerful drug and could be addictive. Keeping that in perspective, as well as target hours and hours worked, allowing principles to dictate behaviour front and centre, is essential for an enjoyable and successful legal career in the City.

Alan Paul, a former partner at Allen & Overy, has spent the past 12 years as a professional coach specialising in supporting law firm partners. You can hear more about his career on The Legal Cheek Podcast (Spotify and Apple).

Legal Cheek’s Samantha Wong reports on a Q&A session with the creators of the play ahead of its cinema debut

“One in three women. Look to your left. Look to your right. It’s one of us.”

Sitting at a screening of NTLive: Prima Facie ahead of its return to cinemas, I felt certain that this live recording was just as gut-wrenching as the original performance at the Harold Pinter Theatre in 2022.

Prima Facie tells the story of Tessa, a young, successful criminal defence barrister, whose staunch belief in the legal system and its delivery of justice was utterly shattered when she herself became a victim of sexual assault. Now on the witness stand, being scrutinised rather than doing the scrutinising, she experienced firsthand how the rigid logic of criminal law struggles to make sense of a violation so deeply personal and emotional. Instead of facilitating justice, it seemed to prevent it.

It is said that “art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable”. While I cannot imagine many sexual assault survivors finding Prima Facie particularly comforting to watch, the fact that this play has made a real societal impact should provide some relief, not least because the play is so successful at disturbing the comfortable.

As the playwright Suzie Miller explained at the Q&A following the screening, a High Court judge contacted her three days after the play opened on the West End, asking permission to borrow her words as they revise the jury instructions normally given in sexual assault trials. The play also inspired a group of barristers to form TESSA (The Examination of Serious Sexual Assault), which calls to re-evaluate the statutory definitions of rape, consent and sexual assault in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

In fact, making a real impact was the goal all along. During the Q&A, Kate Parker, founder of the Schools Consent Project, shared that the charity was invited to partner with the production from its inception. The play’s success, from stage to screen, has helped the organisation deliver workshops to over 55,000 school-age children, educating them on the legal definition of consent. When the production transferred to Broadway, it brought the Schools Consent Project to New York City, where they opened a US branch to run similar workshops at local schools.

Prima Facie also partnered with Everyone’s Invited, a charity that provides a safe space for survivors to share their stories. As the live recording reaches more viewers, the charity has received an increasing number of testimonies from survivors seeking catharsis, empowerment, and a sense of community and hope. Much like the play, the charity helps give survivors their voices back.

As a former lawyer, Miller recognised that many in the legal profession can be so swept up by the day-to-day that they lose sight of the bigger picture. Prima Facie serves as a stark reminder of the urgent work that remains to be done. It’s safe to say that Prima Facie deserves a spot on every law student’s required reading list.

NTLive: Prima Facie will be available in cinemas worldwide from today (12 September 2024).

Catrin Le Rendu juggles her legal career with playing SkyScanner roulette

Imagine drafting legal documents from a sun-drenched café in Portugal or a cosy Swiss chalet… This is my reality as a ‘digital nomad’ lawyer, a far cry from mahogany-panelled offices and recording your life in six minute increments!

Before switching to remote work I’d experienced it all, from training with the government in London to working in legal-tech in Hong Kong and even working on billion dollar deals at a world-leading offshore law firm.

However, as the years went by, I wanted more freedom and flexibility, so the idea of being able to work from anywhere excited me. But in a pre-covid world the thought of a lawyer working ‘‘remotely’’ was more of a far-fetched dream, with opportunities being few and far between.

Thankfully things seemed to shift during the pandemic, which taught us that working from wherever you have WiFi is possible (even in the legal field!) At the same time, AI has been a key en­abler of remote work, stream­lin­ing tasks and adding flex­ib­il­ity to many ca­reers.

Live, love, law? How I went from being a burned out lawyer to a digital nomad!

In 2022 I finally put my flip flops on and set up a remote legal business, which enabled me to work all over the world, from coworking cafes in Dubai to the powdery beaches of Zanzibar. I was able to travel to places I’d always dreamed of and met some incredible people along the way.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Catrin Le Rendu (@catrinlerendu)

As exciting as all of this truly was, after a while I actually found myself missing the collaborative environment of being part of a team and the opportunity to work on a larger scale. With this in mind, some 18 months later I started a new adventure and joined Nordic legal-tech company Aatos, which is often dubbed the ‘Netflix of Legal Services’. Currently, I serve as legal counsel (remote) for the UK market.

A day in the life

So, what does a day in the life of a digital nomad lawyer look like? Well, it starts with a matcha latte at 9am (UK time) for our daily team meeting! The faces on my screen represent teammates dispersed across the world, all managing different time zones to connect.

Post-meeting, I might spend a couple of hours on marketing and PR tasks, such as drafting legal blogs for our website, or perhaps on customer service if our clients have more complex queries that necessitate a human response.

Midday typically involves working with the tech team to build new ways to create legal products online, which requires a blend of legal expertise, customer experience considerations, and AI assistance to ensure our products are legally sound and user-friendly.

Afternoons often see me collaborating with the global team and brainstorming new legal tech solutions. We constantly explore innovative ways to integrate AI while maintaining effective risk management.

Whenever I feel a sense of wanderlust, our tech-integrated approach allows me to work from anywhere, so I often find myself playing SkyScanner roulette! The result? One week my office background is a coworking lab in Azerbaijan, the next a lakehouse in North Macedonia. My colleagues are all for it and laughed their heads off when I called them from a spaceship themed hotel in Malaga!

Even though we’re usually thousands of miles apart, I’ve never felt closer to a team before and simply don’t agree with the notion that remote work makes it harder to build strong team dynamics. This way of working is the future, so why aren’t more legal businesses embracing it? In 2024 I don’t think we need a culture of Orwellian surveillance and universal distrust.

Challenges and rewards

Don’t get me wrong, this digital nomad lifestyle isn’t without its challenges. Managing time zones is key, so I generally find it easier to work from Europe, which is easier said than done post-Brexit! Coordinating with a globally dispersed team also requires clear communication skills and proficiency in digital collaboration tools.
However, the benefits of this way of working far outweigh the challenges. I’ve gained unparalleled cultural awareness that you simply do not get from sitting in the same office cubicle all year long! And, most importantly, I’ve achieved a work-life balance I once thought impossible in the legal industry.

This setup isn’t simply about personal fulfilment; it’s making me a better lawyer. Exposure to a diverse range of legal systems and business cultures seriously improves your problem solving skills and broadens your perspective — invaluable assets in today’s global legal landscape.

How to become a digital nomad lawyer

Forward-thinking companies like Aatos combined with the tech­no­lo­gical re­volu­tion seem to slowly but surely be reshaping what it means to be a lawyer in the 21st cen­tury. Nowadays, AI can handle routine tasks, free­ing us to focus on the uniquely human as­pects of our work: strategy, cre­ativ­ity, and client re­la­tion­ships. So, with the right tools and mindset, even the most traditional law firms can (and should) adapt to this new world.

For aspiring lawyers looking to embark on a similar career path to me, I highly recommend getting some experience working in-house for a tech company — these organisations usually encourage remote work. Plus, when companies embrace the future (as opposed to fighting it) they’re more likely to be successful in the long term.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Catrin Le Rendu (@catrinlerendu)

To put yourself ahead of the curve it’s essential to develop your digital skills alongside your legal expertise, as the tra­di­tion­al train­ing ground of con­tract review is evolving. While un­der­stand­ing the in­tric­a­cies of con­tracts re­mains cru­cial, the ability to use AI tools and strategically apply its insights is becoming increasingly valuable.

Develop adaptability and cultural intelligence too so that you can navigate different cultural contexts with ease. This skill is something that’s particularly important if you fancy becoming a remote lawyer and it will set you apart when interacting with clients and colleagues from diverse backgrounds.

Finally, it’s worth noting that having a so-called ‘’laptop lifestyle’’ requires self-discipline and excellent time management. You’ll need to be able to create clear boundaries between work and leisure, especially when your office of the week is mere steps away from a tempting beach!

The future of law is flex­ible, global, and ex­cit­ing!

Ultimately, I hope that my ‘unconventional’ journey demonstrates that you really don’t need to choose between having a successful legal career and your dream lifestyle. AI-powered legal plat­forms and cloud-based tech­no­lo­gies have un­tethered us from tra­di­tion­al working en­vir­on­ments. For those ready to challenge the status quo and embrace a new way of practising law, the world is literally your office!

Catrin Le Rendu is legal counsel at Aatos and founder of The Glampacking Lawyer (Digital Nomad Blog).

Amid marking howlers and failure to deliver on transparency pledges, the profession is losing confidence in the new Solicitors Qualifying Exam. It all boils down to lack of leadership, says legal education godfather Professor Nigel Savage. Will anyone step up?

Now that the dust has settled on the SQE exam results fiasco, it’s a good time to reflect. We’ve all made mistakes; the test is how you handle them with swift comms and appropriate sensitivity.

Judging by the student response across social media and websites like Legal Cheek, I’m not sure that happened. I know anecdotally from my own network that there are serious issues in the administration of the SQE.

However, that shouldn’t detract from the strategy. I supported the reform and its already delivering on some of the objectives. The concept of qualifying work experience instead of the training contract has removed a huge bottle neck, particularly for paralegals and the apprenticeship market will eventually restore the old five-year route of qualifying entirely from within the workplace.

Undergraduate law schools cannot ignore the SQE and do so at their peril. They will be judged on their outputs and cannot lay all the blame on the new prep providers. Meanwhile, there is greater competitive pressure from new providers, some of whom have brought substantial investment into the market from overseas.

So where has SQE creator the Solicitor Regulation Authority (SRA) fallen short? The strategy was right, but they have failed to deliver on tactics. To borrow a quote from warfare: “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory”, which is presumably why the SRA are saying there will be no changes for ten years. I attended some of the early meetings where we were assured that the SRA would publish league tables on where candidates completed their law degrees and prep courses. Indeed, it was a requirement raised in the Legal Services Board (LSB) approval when they stated: “it is essential that the SRA delivers on its commitments to monitoring and evaluation including making all reports, data and assessment of these for public consumption”.

There doesn’t seem to be any immediate prospect of publication, the excuse being that such data is not available. Surely if the application form to register for the SQE required students to provide that information it would already be available. Given the SRA’s wider responsibility in terms of consumer protection (not to mention the LSB) it is surely in the public interest for all students, parents and employers to have access to this data given the level of investment they are making in the profession.

It has always been argued that the data requirement shouldn’t extend to undergraduate schools because they are regulated by other bodies, but those regulators won’t have access to such data and are not likely to ask for it unless the SRA supply it. The American Bar Association publishes annually a comprehensive set of data for all accredited law schools on success rates in the State Bar exams as a form of consumer protection — and they have 198 schools and 117,000 students to manage!

I think there is a marked lack of interest, leadership and ownership in the sector from the LSB, the Law Society and the SRA, especially in representing the interests of the student consumers making their way through the system. I think some of the tactical issues are falling between the gaps as between regulation and membership — and amid the posturing much of what the Law Society used to engage in to support the framework has been forgotten.

LawCAB provides real support for student applicants and does some gathering of data, plus there are some excellent pockets of tactical leadership such as the recent initiatives emanating from the City of London Law Society. The danger is that such leadership is fragmented and leads to duplication of scarce resources. I saw this happen many years when the pro-bono movement gathered speed, lots of very worthy projects but not co-ordinated which resulted huge duplication of resources eventually mitigated by the appointment of a Pro-bono Tsar.

Universities are facing the perfect storm, with law schools — even research-led ones — facing huge challenges which put at risk their very existence and work in key areas such as justice, diversity and overseas links. Such law schools are now located in ‘Super Faculties’ where they compete for resources with other disciplines who may be supported by external organisations which are more vociferous and proactive than their legal counterparts. I well remember when the Legal Practice Course (LPC) was first introduced, and the Law Society appointed the fearsome Paulene Collins to manage validation visits and rate providers on a scale of excellent to unsatisfactory. If the provider was not providing sufficient resource, or falling short on key issues such as diversity, they would be highlighted in the report. That provided a framework to address changing patterns in the legal services market and highlight real innovation . That no longer exists and the market has to be informed on the basis of social media and marketing puff.

In the area of apprenticeships some vice chancellors are reluctant to support them because they are regulated and monitored by OFSTED and inspectors may not have sufficient expertise in some degree level fields. Surely the SRA and Law Society could train individuals with specialist expertise to join such panels and work with OFSTED to encourage more universities to embrace the route?

There has been much innovation across the sector, particularly the SME sector, but I have been surprised by how much of the old training contract regime has been retained in the City firms. I thought that the SQE would provoke some radical changes not least driven by the Richard Susskind future of law agenda ,with a reduction in the numbers but much greater investment in professional development, taking recruits to a higher level quicker. Instead, the firms are engaging in a remuneration battle which is just driving up their cost base.

I guess my main point is that there doesn’t seem be any ‘ownership’ of legal education in its broadest sense. If the findings of the recent University of Exeter Report are to be implemented regulators are going to have to be more interventionist. There must be a clear role for the Law Society in coordinating the tactical issues for aspirant solicitors, but they are hidebound by the fact that they cannot admit students — or anyone else — into membership. I also feel that much more could be done to make the new qualification more accessible to students overseas by setting up test centres in key jurisdictions. Global legal services are an important sector for the UK economy and encouraging lawyers overseas to acquire the professional status without the need to travel would add value to sustaining the pre-eminence of English law globally.

Professor Nigel Savage previously ran three law schools under three different solicitor qualifying regimes. He led Nottingham Law School through the switch from Law Society Finals to the LPC, was then the CEO of The University of Law and finally headed up The College of Legal Practice as it launched to deliver the SQE. He no longer has any law school affiliations.

Law student Dara Antova gives her verdict on the Kaplan marking debacle

It’s officially been over a month since the most recent episode of “Law and Disorder” aired. Candidates are still reeling from it, and the consequences are definitely evident.

One hundred and seventy-five out of 6,626 candidates were mistakenly told they had failed the first set of Solicitors Qualifying Exams (SQE1). What is even more troubling is how this mistake was uncovered. It wasn’t through Kaplan’s internal efficiency checks or through detailed analysis before announcing the results. Instead, the error was only discovered because the affected students appealed their results. This revelation has sparked a debate about the quality of the current examination system and whether enough safeguards are in place to prevent such oversights and protect future lawyers.

While it is appreciated by many that Solicitors Regulation Authority’s chief executive, Paul Philip, has expressed his disappointment and acknowledged the seriousness of this mistake, it doesn’t change the fact that for some students, it resulted in their training contract (TC) offers being revoked.

After working diligently in an already highly competitive industry, where the demand for working as a lawyer often exceeds available positions, this setback is particularly disheartening. Not to mention the additional slap in the face of the goodwill payment of £250, which seems inadequate and does little to address the significant impact on the candidates; no amount of money can adequately address the situation, especially considering that covers just a fraction over one-eighth of the total fees required to complete SQE1.

The City of London Law Society’s training committee shed light on a sobering reality, saying: “Some have chosen to abandon their prospective legal career“. This statement resonates deeply, as many aspiring lawyers are witnessing first-hand the actions of firms that have swiftly rescinded TC offers. The allure of the TC’s glossy packaging, perks, and pay-packet no longer masks the stark truth: firms have revealed their priorities, and the well-being of their employees didn’t make the cut. I get it; it’s a grim truth that no aspiring lawyer wants to face, and it’s definitely causing many to reconsider this lauded career path.

With fees set to rise in September even with the marking blunder, can we really have much faith in the SQE administrators? As unpleasant as the situation is, we must remember, in the interest of balance, that this exam is relatively new, and it’s normal to encounter challenges initially. However, given the expectations placed on future lawyers to be trustworthy and reliable, it’s only fair to expect the same level of commitment from those administering the exams.

Just imagine the frustration of pouring your heart and soul into an exam only to be told you didn’t make the cut, only to later discover it was an error. By then, it may be too late to sign up for SQE2, leaving you unable to qualify that year. As a result, you might find yourself grappling with the overwhelming sense of loss and disappointment. Does that sound dramatic to you?

How can this ever be rectified? Candidates are now left to navigate this ordeal, and I fear the true extent of the consequences may never be fully known. So many have been deterred from pursuing their dreams, and the impact of this debacle is far-reaching.

As a future lawyer, I found myself heartbroken over the news, imagining I was in the shoes of those candidates. Witnessing the fallout and reading about the consequences on the internet, with future lawyers expressing their lack of mental strength, willpower, and energy to continue, made me question my own career path—as did many others. And for those who have been completely deterred from pursuing a career as a solicitor, I don’t blame you!

Speaking at the time, Kaplan’s director of qualifications, Zoe Robinson, said: “We are committed to putting this right for candidates, and sincerely regret and apologise for the impact this has had for those affected.” In addition to the goodwill payment, Robinson acknowledged that students who received incorrect results might have suffered direct losses and encouraged those affected to come forward.

At the end of the day, some incredible would-be lawyers may have been lost to the profession due to this blunder. The best we can hope for now is to ensure something like this never happens again. I appreciate that Kaplan is working on it, however, it doesn’t make the current situation any easier to bear.

From my perspective, the SQE seemed like a promising concept in theory. However, its implementation has fallen significantly short of its intended purpose. Despite aiming for inclusivity and accessibility, it has achieved the opposite effect. This discrepancy between theory and reality raises significant concerns about the effectiveness and fairness of the SQE examination system. The disparity between the lofty goals set forth by the SQE and the harsh realities faced by candidates highlights a fundamental flaw in the system. It’s imperative that those in positions of authority acknowledge the gravity of the situation and take meaningful steps to address the damage done. The trust and confidence of aspiring lawyers and the integrity of the legal profession are at stake, and swift action is needed to restore both.

Dara Antova is a final-year law student at Goldsmiths, University of London and is aspiring to qualify as a solicitor in the corporate/commercial sector. Outside of the law, she’s passionate about weight training and travelling.

A paralegal opens up about wellbeing challenges associated with the new assessment

The opinion you never asked for — I passed the SQE1 exams whilst working full-time. I’m still recovering from the shockwave.

After what felt like ages, the day finally came: SQE1 exam results day. The email came into my inbox, promptly followed by a wave of nausea. Clicking on the link, my eyes were drawn to that coveted word, “PASS”. By some miracle (and when I say miracle, I mean it), I actually passed both FLK1 and FLK2.

Since then, I have been in perpetual disbelief that I somehow managed to pass the exams, having left the exam centre on both occasions feeling utterly defeated, and perhaps not quite the same person as when I went in. I am left with overwhelming ambivalence about the whole experience.

Whilst I am one of the lucky ones to have passed the exams, I can’t help but feel almost like a fraud — why should I, who achieved scarcely over the pass mark, be able to toast champagne with my colleagues and family, whilst the candidate who lost out on a handful of correct answers, spends the rest of the week under their duvet, battling with the prospects of having to re-enter a mental sinkhole?

I was scrolling through social media on the exam results day, and it truly made for sorry reading. I flicked through personal accounts of the mental and emotional turmoil in which participants found themselves when preparations began, the life moments that were sacrificed, all in efforts to devote every waking moment to revising. Oddly, it felt comforting to read that others had the same experience as me: troubled sleep, anxiety, reclusiveness and spiralling emotions.

Perhaps it was a combination of the sheer expanse of material covered by the exams (including areas of law that were entirely new to me), the necessity to rote learn over a period of many months in efforts to commit the content to memory, and the relentless use of red-herrings within the MCQs aimed at throwing you off course, that made the process so disconcerting.

It seems to me that this sort of “rigorous professional assessment”, as the SRA christened it, cannot be a sustainable way of testing wannabe lawyers to ensure they are ‘up for the job’; to put them on the back-foot before they even begin in practice. Of course, it is fair to say that to be part of the legal profession is a privilege, and the key shouldn’t be handed over as a matter of right. However, I wonder about the long-term impact on budding lawyers of this style of gateway examination, which is not cheap by any means, and appears to foster mental and emotional anguish.

Reflecting on my experience, I would offer up one meagre tip to success: don’t attempt to work a full-time job whilst studying for these exams. The format demands a huge amount of your time, commitment and emotional energy; impossible to relinquish alongside a full-time job. However, for a large quantity of candidates, I would imagine the alternative is simply not an option. All of us have obligations, whether financial or otherwise. We rely on every last penny of our monthly pay packet. The thought of reducing that monthly income seems an unreasonable ask, and it wouldn’t seem sensible to add to the heavy academic burden of the SQE with an equally heavy burden of worrying about how one is going to pay the rent.

In fact, I would go further and say: it’s not actually as simplistic as avoiding the inevitable balancing act of full-time work and study. A huge dose of luck is involved as well. Luck in the particular questions that arise on the day (and whether, by pure chance, your tired, tired brain is able to conjure the relevant legal concept within the 90-seconds you have to answer the question), and that you are able to engage mental stamina as the fourth hour passes on exam day.

It’s important that I acknowledge the fact I was able to approach these exams from an incredibly privileged position. I have the support of a partner to carry the domestic burdens of daily life that I would otherwise have abandoned. I don’t have any disabilities that would make accessing the exams even more challenging. I have an extremely present family, and work for a firm which supported me through the process. The thought of taking on the SQE without all of the above seems untenable.

My final thoughts would be for those who are yet to attempt the exams, or who have unfortunately not passed this time around. Maybe you are staring down the barrel of undertaking your preparation for a second or third time. Yes, the exams are meant to be hard — we’ve heard that a million times. But that doesn’t actually help. The inescapable struggle with the mental element of this process, which is arguably more difficult to traverse than learning the exam content itself, is justified, and I’m sure, felt deeply by all candidates. If you feel like you might, or indeed have, ‘failed’ the SQE1, I would say that it speaks more to the precarious system than to your true abilities, and certainly does not determine how successful a lawyer you will be.

SQE Survivor is an LLB graduate and currently works as a paralegal.

Jodie Chennell, part-time law student and full-time NHS employee, explores how the legal industry can become more inclusive of neurodiversity

I’m Jodie, a 27-year-old third year, part-time law student with autism. I am completing my degree alongside my full-time job working in management in the NHS and overall, I feel optimistic about a career change to the legal industry. However, more and more frequently, I find myself asking: is being autistic a benefit to my legal career, or a hindrance? I think the answer is multifaceted.

Firstly, I was drawn to law because of my ability to think in a black and white manner — I am very clear in my mind as to what is right and what is wrong. This allows me to apply the law to a given situation relatively easily and follow a structured approach to resolving problematic situations, without being hampered by minor inconsistencies. Further, my objectivity allows me to see past the emotive elements of a case to focus on solving the legal issue at hand, something that not everyone would find an easy feat! These autistic traits, alongside hyper-focus, paying very close attention to detail and reliability, all look to be very well-suited to a career in the legal profession.

However, one trait which is common amongst those with autism is the deep-rooted need for a structured routine and one which I struggle without. So how is this compatible with the legal profession’s infamous late finishes? Long hours in the office? Having cases sprung on you with little notice? The uncertainty that accompanies a training contract, without the guarantee of a job at the end of it? Well, the obvious answer is that it’s not.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) recently reported that there are just 6% of lawyers with disabilities, compared to 16% of the UK workforce. As an autistic law student, I have found that the method for applying to vacation schemes and training contracts is not (always) overly supportive of the differences in the way autistic students work.

Last year, I applied for a vacation scheme and was given just 48-72 hours (I can’t quite remember which) to complete an aptitude assessment. I personally didn’t declare my autism at the point of application, which in hindsight, is perhaps the downfall there. However, the website for the law firm did not mention that the email for the aptitude assessment would follow so closely after the application submission and that the strict deadline would apply.

A concern that comes to my mind when deciding whether or not to disclose my autism on an application form is whether I will be thought of differently because I am autistic. Do law firms have time to dedicate to understanding more about neurodivergent diagnoses in order to adequately support their applicants, trainees and lawyers?

I suppose the point is, if autistic applicants feel put off by the lack of information provided on firm websites, deadlines being sprung on them with no prior warning or discussion, the continued reference to lack of routine in the legal sector with long hours etc, then how can they be expected to succeed in entry to the legal sector to add to that 6%? A good starting point would be for consistent and uniform information to be provided across all law firm websites and clear, detailed information provided about the ways in which they can support neurodivergent applicants. This would provide confidence to such applicants that firms have the time, resources and knowledge to ensure that they receive the appropriate support to succeed.

Whilst aptitude assessments can be incredibly valuable to assess an applicant’s capabilities, are there alternative methods of assessment that may be more inclusive? By way of example, most law firm applicants are expected to undertake either a verbal reasoning test or the Watson-Glaser test, in order to reduce the number of applicants to a more manageable figure. Going forward, perhaps firms can instead, consider more creative methods of assessing a candidate’s suitability, without a blanket approach. After all, autism is just one neurodiverse diagnosis, and the key feature of neurodivergence is how our brains work differently to others. Therefore, if faced with barriers so early on in the process that require our brains to mirror that of neurotypicals, without any opportunity to demonstrate our skills in another way before being declined an interview, how can we be expected to succeed?

Further, as a law student, we’re frequently reminded of the importance of networking, particularly in the degree stages as an opportunity to meet other legal professionals. However, as far as I can tell, these networking events aren’t often set up with the neurodivergent in mind. For example, they are often held in central cities, such as London or Manchester, meaning a considerable commute for some. If held in person, consideration could be given to a quiet area or space, away from the crowd to decompress if the event is found to be stressful or overwhelming. Perhaps even detailing what food and drinks will be on offer at the event in advance would help neurodivergent attendees to feel more prepared for what to expect on the day.

If the legal profession does indeed want to become more inclusive of disabled lawyers, perhaps it is time for a cultural shift to more stability in working hours, introducing calming spaces in offices to decompress and normalising needing to take regular breaks, to demonstrate that new ways of doing things can be just as productive as the age-old methods to which we have become so accustomed. In addition to the positive traits of autism I mentioned at the outset, people with autism are known for their unique perspective, their reliability, their honesty, their exceptional organisational skills, and so arguably, have an excellent breadth of skills to offer to the legal profession.

People with autism are renowned for their specialist interests, and being masters in their field when they find their passion and the topic that excites them. Imagine the possibilities for a firm that encourages an autistic person to find special interests at work, whilst supporting them to work in a way that it suitable for their needs. For example, agreeing to clear, written communication methods over verbal instruction where feasible, allowing them a desk slightly further from the hustle and bustle of the busy office space, considering flexible working arrangements to support home working, agreeing work hours in advance as far as possible and catering to their sensory needs when being expected to work in the office.

If we are to increase the statistic of disabled lawyers beyond 6%, it’s time to recognise that the existing way of working requires rethinking.

Jodie Chennell is a third-year part-time law student. Alongside her studies, she works full-time in Management in the NHS. She is keen to raise awareness of her experiences as an autistic woman and posts about this regularly on her socials @autisticjodes.

A law grad and training contract offer holder details their journey through SQE1

Like most others starting on the SQE, I too had heard the horror stories — too much content, a nightmare to book the assessments and long, tiring exam days. Having recently sat both FLK1 and FLK2 for the first time, this is how I found it.

Studying for SQE1

Having already done a law degree in England, I started preparing for the SQE1 thinking that I might have it easier. But the reality was that a few years had passed since those contract and tort modules and my memory was more than a bit rusty. So, as it turned out, I had to put just as much time into studying for some of the subjects I’d already covered on my law degree, as for those I hadn’t previously encountered.

The large volume of content that the SQE1 tests on was also something to get used to in the initial weeks. Even with the support of a preparation course, I often felt like I was just constantly learning new information and felt doubtful if I was actually absorbing anything. I was used to studying law with cases mapping out the nuanced progression of a rule over time and applying that knowledge in problem questions and essays, while the SQE1 is a multiple-choice question exam. I certainly found myself over-analysing and questioning the answer choices, falling back into the habit of covering all bases as we’re taught to do in a law degree. It also didn’t help that the SQE1 answer choices are in a ‘single best answer’ format, so you’re not necessarily choosing the right answer from a selection of wrong ones — there could be more than one response that answer the question correctly, just that there’s only one which answers it the best.

It took me a few weeks to get into a good study routine, force myself to be consistent and stick to a schedule. Once I did this, I found myself feeling less overwhelmed by how much there was to get through, because it just came down to methodically following a plan. It’s important to remember that there’s going to be some subjects you get the hang of really easily, and some that you just can’t seem to get right. Because the SQE1 is a pass/fail exam, try not to get too bogged down by wanting to learn everything in all the subjects perfectly, and instead, be strategic about your strengths and weaknesses and the areas that you can realistically improve on by dedicating a few extra study hours. Analysing your scores across the different subjects in practice questions and mock exams is helpful to try and understand this — while it may take a bit of extra time, it’s definitely worth it because it means your revision can be more focused.

Having a clear schedule and sticking to it also means that you have better boundaries when it comes to juggling work, family and social commitments, and don’t feel guilty about taking time off so you don’t end up burned out.

Revising for SQE1

When revising I really had to resist the temptation to try and perfect every little bit of information on the SQE1 syllabus. The SRA website provides an outline of the percentage of questions that will be asked from each subject area — it definitely helped me to keep this in mind when revising, so that I wasn’t spending hours and hours on a tiny section of the course that might only come up in a couple of questions on the exam.

I also tried to balance revising content with doing practice questions every day when I was revising, since I found that there was sometimes a gap between knowing the information and applying it to the MCQs. Doing mock exams is also quite helpful to figure out when you start losing focus and begin feeling tired under timed conditions, so that you can factor in some time to take a water break in the exam.

I made sure that I wasn’t doing too many practice questions in the last couple of days before the exam and focused more on any loose ends in the actual content to try and keep my mind fresh for the 5 hours of MCQs on assessment day.

Sitting the exams

After the initial struggle of booking a centre to sit FLK 1 and FLK 2, there wasn’t anything unexpected about the process of sitting either exam — just the usual things. Arriving well ahead of time, having the right ID documents to hand, wearing comfortable clothes — as for any exam.

Perhaps the most challenging aspect was trying not get demotivated when faced with a series of challenging questions and ensuring I wasn’t spending too much time on any one question — I found it helpful to use the ‘flag’ function to earmark questions I was struggling with and come back to it at the end to try and work the answer out. I certainly found my focus wavering around the halfway mark and really had to force myself to concentrate on answering the questions.

Of course, I’ve only just sat the exams, so I haven’t got my results to hand yet. But it might help those who are feeling a bit lost about preparing for and sitting the SQE1 exams to hear about a recent experience of doing the same, for what it’s worth!

‘SQE Student’ is a law grad and training contract offer holder.

Solicitor Baljinder Singh Atwal examines some of the main concerns

For anyone sceptical of new technology, this is for you.

My previous article explored some of the exciting possibilities of AI within law. From high tech legal research to extremely accurate executive summaries and public databases that could save us a vast amount of time and energy. With the gentle encouragement of the comments section, I now examine some of the main concerns and drawbacks with AI in the workplace.

Trust

With any new technology or method, there will be some reluctance and hesitation around fully implementing it in legal practice. Only once we have some of the most trusted brands and organisations leading the way with AI, do I think it will truly catch on. Consider what happened with virtual events and working during the pandemic — these transformed from tools rarely utilised, to a core practice that has reconceptualised the way we work. Similarly, once the trust is established with AI tools through a process of trying and testing, these are likely to change things forever.

Technology gap

As some organisations and law firms embrace technology quicker than others, we may see a gap in technology which will impact competition, clients, recruitment, retention and more. The improvement of small processes across large organisations will create streamlined work practices: from filling in a form to drafting an email, to legal research and creating a presentation. Through the pandemic, this was also seen where some legal teams adapted very quickly to being able to work remotely, signing documents electronically and conducting meetings with several people in different locations.

Data protection

The use and implementation of AI will often utilise large data sets which may have access to or include very sensitive information. The initial link between data and AI will need to be considered carefully as the growth of technology will inevitably increase cyber attacks, hacking attempts, fraud and more. In an increasingly connected world, international data transfers, privacy and storage will all need to be assessed.

Skills

As we become more reliant on technology and give AI the responsibility of basic admin tasks within the workplace, we may see some skills and practices slowly erode. Some similar examples can be seen through electronic maps and GPS when driving from the traditional skill set of map reading (if anyone reading this is old enough to remember an A to Z). Closer to the office environment was the transition from the written letter to an email. I think that the full implementation of AI at its best may heavily impact: basic legal research, minute/note taking, marketing/branding, preparing first drafts of documents and recruitment methods.

With the new year having been ushered in, it will be interesting to see how AI will change the legal profession and certain sectors. The pandemic brought virtual and remote working into everyone’s working life very quickly. Our knowledge and understanding of how powerful technology can be may give us that encouragement to implement AI quicker despite the above.

Baljinder Singh Atwal is an in-house solicitor at West Midlands Police specialising in commercial and property matters. He is co-chair of the Birmingham Solicitors’ Group and a council member at The Law Society representing junior lawyers nationally.

An increasing number aspiring lawyers are posting their achievements online for others to critique

A phenomenon that has been sweeping popular message boards is slowly creeping into the legal sphere.

Whether it’s interviews, vacation schemes or assessment centres, in the cut-throat fight to get a  training contract, good feedback can make all the difference. However, the latest way aspiring solicitors have been seeking help is not without its risks.

‘Roast my CV’ is a trend where users post their anonymised CVs to online message boards like Reddit, inviting the public to comment freely on it. These comments can range from helpful feedback to open trolling.

Legal Cheek has an increasing number of examples where law graduates looking to gain an edge in the competitive world of commercial law have posted their CVs online for the world to see — and critique.

Common feedback can include formatting issues, sounding like a robot rather than a human, and generic platitudes guaranteed to stop any invitations to interview.

Is this a savvy move in a competitive job market or an act of madness destined to crush fragile dreams? Tell us what you think in the comments…