This week, the Solicitors Regulation Authority published a bundle of documents on the fourth full year of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination. SRA chief executive Sarah Rapson said reports from independent reviewer Ricardo Lé and exam provider Kaplan, together with the regulator’s quality assurance report, ‘should reassure employers and candidates that the SQE is a robust and rigorous assessment’.
However, this positive take is jarringly at odds with the headline findings of a National Junior Lawyers Division survey also published this month: eight in 10 respondents did not consider the SQE to be fit for purpose or good value for money. Half of those who required reasonable adjustments found them inadequate.
Behind the headline numbers, the JLD said, were ‘hundreds of qualitative responses describing financial pressure, inadequate feedback, difficulties booking exams and tolls on mental health’.
Even the SRA’s assurance report admitted that overall candidate satisfaction levels for SQE1, which ranged between 50% and 55%, had dipped slightly. Overall satisfaction levels for SQE2 remained broadly static at between 46% and 57%.
The SRA’s assessments did not touch on value for money. However, the regulator confirmed that exam fees will increase to reflect inflation and the cost of translating the assessments into Welsh. Candidates currently pay £1,934 to sit SQE1 and £2,974 to sit SQE2. From October, they will pay £2,006 for SQE1 and £3,086 for SQE2.
Is the SQE fit for purpose? Lé’s report suggests it is. He described the SQE as ‘high-stakes assessments that are complex and multi-faceted’, which ‘makes them challenging to deliver but results in an assessment that is robust and defensible, providing value to its outcomes’.
Delivery of the exam last year ‘was good and demonstrated improvement based on past annual reports’, Lé added. ‘The SRA and Kaplan teams work together to ensure openness and accountability, collaborating when issues arise to ensure optimal outcomes. Candidates, stakeholders and the public should have confidence that the SQE outcomes delivered in 2025 were fair and defensible and that there is a clear commitment to the continual enhancement of assessment design, development and delivery processes.’
One JLD survey respondent described SQE as a ‘memory test. No first-day solicitor would retain that amount of information’. The body said recurring themes in the qualitative feedback included the need to provide detailed feedback on results, release past papers, narrow the breadth of examinable content and align the assessment more closely with day-one practice.
On the SQE1’s multiple-choice single-best-answer format, Lé acknowledged that solicitors are unlikely to be presented with a list of five options when making a decision. However, the format was appropriate because it tests the application of knowledge in a wide range of areas. For SQE2, the website contains ‘clear objectives of each station, providing rationale for why the design is as it is’.
Lé added that the SQE is a ‘unique assessment in the field of solicitor qualification and the wider legal education sphere, so there is not always precedence when difficult decisions need to be made or new processes developed’. However, Kaplan was ‘open to using external expertise’ from fields that run similar assessments, such as those in medical education. ‘This highlights a culture that is constantly looking to improve and remain at the forefront of professional exams,’ Lé said.
The SRA said Kaplan has published 50 more sample SQE1 questions that were used in previous exams, as well as more guidance on the SQE1 format. For SQE2, more sample written assessments have been published.
On reasonable adjustments, the SRA’s quality assurance report acknowledged that feedback from candidates requiring reasonable adjustments was below overall cohort satisfaction levels.
In the JLD survey, one respondent said they were allowed to take medication into their SQE1 exam. However, they had not specified that they needed water to take the medication and were unable to take a drink into the exam room.
Lé said the reasonable adjustments process was changed last year. Candidates no longer have to make separate applications for SQE1 and SQE2. The application status and details of agreed adjustments can be viewed in their account.
Rapson acknowledged that confidence in the SQE is not as high as the regulator would like and ‘extensive evaluation’ is being carried out. The JLD’s report provides timely recommendations, including reviewing the full cost of undertaking the SQE, pass rate data for SQE course providers and ‘meaningful’ feedback on failed assessments.
As if the SRA’s in-tray were not full enough already.
1 Reader's comment