September 2021 saw the official introduction of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE), with the first ever sittings of SQE1 taking place on 8 and 11 November.
The overhaul of the existing law degree-to-Legal Practice Course-to-training contract qualification route marks an exciting opportunity to embrace change and champion inclusivity within our traditional profession.
However, it is no secret that the SQE has attracted criticism from a variety of stakeholders – including from the Junior Lawyers Division (JLD) – since the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) first announced its plans to introduce a new route to qualification.
With the SQE now firmly in action, I am not alone in questioning the extent to which these criticisms have been addressed and where our focus should be going forwards.
Structure
For those unfamiliar, to qualify under the SQE, candidates must:
- pass SQE1, which tests functioning legal knowledge through an exam split into two parts;
- pass SQE2, which assesses practical legal skills through oral and written assessments;
- obtain 2 years’ qualifying work experience; and
- meet the SRA’s character and suitability requirements.
This reform seeks to standardise the assessment of aspiring solicitors’ legal knowledge and practical skills, while increasing the flexibility of how candidates gain practical experience.
Widening access to the profession
Increasing access to the profession forms one of the SRA’s broader objectives in implementing the SQE.
My concern, however, rests in ensuring that the overhaul of existing routes actually corresponds to a more inclusive profession for all.
Notably, the Bridge Group (who reported on the SQE’s potential impact on diversity) found that the SQE could improve but not rectify all diversity challenges in the profession.
Costs
Unlike the LPC and GDL – the cost of which can be financially inaccessible to many of those without firm sponsorship – the SQE does not require candidates to enrol in a formal preparatory course.
On the face of it, the cost of sitting the SQE exams totals £3,980; a stark contrast to the average LPC fee.
As candidates are not obliged to enrol in rigidly structured or fixed-term teaching programmes, those previously excluded from entering the profession due to caring responsibilities or work commitments may now do so –casting a wider net of future solicitors.
But how does this play out in reality?
The courses range from £500 to circa £17,000, on top of exam costs of £3,980.
It is unlikely that students would be adequately prepared for the SRA’s new “rigorous” standardised assessment without undertaking some form of preparatory course beforehand.
Particularly it seems unlikely that those who have not studied law before (given the removal of the requirement for a law degree or GDL) would be well-equipped to enrol in SQE1 without access to preparatory materials.
Thus, the risk of a two-tier profession prevails.
A disparity may arise between those who have undertaken a higher level of legal education through completing more thorough preparatory courses (whether self-funded or sponsored) and those that have not.
The JLD has raised this issue, combined with the lack of government funding options for SQE students, since consultations began six years ago. The SQE’s promised flexibility may contradict its standardised nature if candidates are not on a level playing field before sitting the exams.
To combat this, the SRA may consider publishing standardised revision resources to expand on the example questions currently shared on its website.
With over 1000 candidates due to sit SQE1 this month, it will be pertinent to review how many students enrolled in preparatory courses and their respective results. After all, a key rationale behind standardisation was to provide employers with clearer information on entry into the profession.
Logistics
Currently candidates can only sit SQE2 assessments in three test centres (London, Manchester and Cardiff). Travel to these cities may not be viable for all candidates. A greater selection of test centres or a means of supporting the travel costs where appropriate seems necessary.
Similarly, while appreciating the logistics involved in invigilating professional exams, the requirement for SQE1 assessments to be sat in PearsonVue centres could be reviewed to allow proctored remote sittings on a case-by-case basis for those that cannot be provided with adequate reasonable adjustments.
The SRA has confirmed it will permit a greater selection of assistive technologies, after initially prohibiting these technologies and offering an amanuensis instead. The SQE must be inclusive to disabled candidates and so it is imperative that assurances made by the SRA to this end are upheld.
Going forwards
The SQE is here.
We can celebrate the flexibility that the SQE offers aspiring solicitors.
Yet, to reap this reward, we must not lose sight of monitoring the realities of the costs of qualifying under the SQE, the logistics of sitting the exams, and the importance of reviewing information gathered on the candidates choosing to enrol in such routes.
Farah Ali is an executive committee member of the Junior Lawyers Division and a trainee solicitor at DLA Piper
