The Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) is designed to standardise the qualification process for aspiring solicitors in England and Wales, ensuring they possess the necessary skills and knowledge. However, recent failures in providing reasonable adjustments for students, along with a troubling marking scandal, have raised concerns about integrity and fairness.
Reasonable adjustments are necessary to ensure all candidates, particularly those with disabilities, have a fair opportunity to demonstrate their abilities. Under the Equality Act 2010, educational institutions must make these accommodations to prevent discrimination.
Many SQE candidates have reported systemic failures in applying these adjustments. Students have faced unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles, unclear guidelines and inadequate responses to their requests. For example, some candidates have been denied additional time or alternative formats, while others have experienced poorly executed accommodations that significantly affected their performance and confidence.
Adding to these issues is a recent scandal concerning SQE marking. Many candidates found their training contracts rescinded after being told they had failed, despite inconsistencies in grading and a lack of transparency in the process. Concerns about potential bias and unclear feedback have also emerged, leading to fears that the results may not accurately reflect candidates’ abilities. This situation raises broader concerns about the fairness and reliability of the SQE.
These problems not only affect the candidates involved but also damage the reputation of the legal profession. When candidates lose faith in the process, it erodes public confidence in the competence of solicitors and the credibility of the qualification system.
The failures in reasonable adjustments and the marking scandal also have significant implications for diversity and inclusion. The legal sector has long struggled with the under-representation of marginalised groups, including people with disabilities. If the SQE is not accessible to all candidates, it risks reinforcing inequality and discouraging talented individuals from pursuing a career in law.
The lack of effective reasonable adjustments disproportionately affects those who depend on them to showcase their skills. Meanwhile, the uncertainty surrounding the marking process may deter potential candidates from even attempting the exam, fearing their efforts will not be recognised.
The Junior Lawyers Division launched an SQE survey in March to gather insights from those who have sat or are currently sitting the exam. The results will likely offer valuable information about the candidate experience and ways to improve, but here are some immediate steps the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Kaplan could take to restore confidence in the SQE and ensure fair treatment for all candidates:
Clearer guidelines and training on reasonable adjustments
The SRA and Kaplan should provide clear guidelines on what constitutes reasonable adjustments and ensure all staff involved in the exam process are properly trained. This training should focus on understanding the diverse needs of candidates and ensuring that approved accommodations are implemented effectively. Effective communication between the SRA, Kaplan, and test centres is essential to guarantee accommodations are honoured.
Regular audits of adjustment process
Regular audits of the reasonable adjustments process will ensure compliance with legal requirements and help identify areas for improvement. Feedback from candidates who have requested adjustments can help pinpoint gaps and enhance service delivery.
Independent oversight of marking
An independent body should be established to oversee the marking process. This body would ensure transparency, consistency, and accountability in grading. Candidates should receive clear, constructive feedback on their performance to help them understand where they can improve and ensure the process is free from bias.
Improved communication
Clear communication about the marking process is crucial. Candidates need to understand how their assessments will be graded, the criteria used, and the options available for feedback or appeal. This transparency will demystify the process and build trust among candidates.
Engage with stakeholders
The SRA and Kaplan should regularly engage with a range of stakeholders, including students, educators and legal professionals. Hosting forums for open discussion can foster collaboration and lead to solutions that better meet the needs of all involved.
Conclusion
The recent failures in reasonable adjustments and the SQE marking scandal represent significant challenges that must be addressed to maintain the integrity of the legal qualification process. These issues not only affect the candidates involved but also have far-reaching consequences for the legal profession, public trust, and diversity and inclusion efforts.
The matters highlighted are not the only issues affecting the SQE. Immediate action is needed to restore confidence. By providing clearer guidelines on reasonable adjustments, establishing independent oversight of marking and improving transparency we can take meaningful steps toward creating a fairer, more equitable exam process. Through collective effort and a commitment to these principles, we can ensure that the next generation of solicitors is equipped to serve the diverse needs of society.
Lara Oseni is a legal officer and case presenter at the General Pharmaceutical Council and a member of the Junior Solicitors Network advisory committee
No comments yet