Making peace with the SQE

Say it quietly, but there are things I like about the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) route to qualification as a solicitor. The SQE replaced the Legal Practice Course (LPC) in September last year.

However, I also have concerns. While many of the changes come from a ‘good place’ in terms of helping people qualify, as far as managing junior resource is concerned, firms are going to be challenged.

But let us start with the positives. It might come as a surprise to some that, under the LPC system, the exams are set and marked by training providers. This lack of a centralised assessment might explain why LPC results vary so much by provider, which, in turn, has to some extent affected the value of the qualification.

Under the SQE pathway, the new SQE assessments are set and marked by an independent assessor (Kaplan), so firms can be confident that every candidate who walks through their door having passed these assessments will have been judged against the same standard. And if the results of the first SQE1 exam are anything to go by, the standard set by Kaplan is high. Only 53% of students passed.

SQE1, which tests legal knowledge, is a multiple choice exam. This initially raised eyebrows with claims that this was a ‘dumbing down’. But just a brief look at the sample questions should assure the most hardened sceptic that these questions could not in any sense be described as easy. They may be multiple choice but the format used is ‘single best answer’. All the options are plausible and students have less than two minutes to answer each question. Easy, this is not.

Students have not yet taken SQE2 which tests legal skills. But what I take from the results so far is that passing the SQE assessments will be a really good indicator that an individual is competent to practise.

Moving on to the other big change under the SQE route: the introduction of qualifying work experience (QWE), which replaces the two-year training contract. This is where my enthusiasm starts to wane.

Unlike a training contract, QWE can be carried out at up to four organisations. This change was introduced because of the shortage of training contracts, leaving many talented individuals high and dry because they could not beat the odds. With QWE, individuals can, in effect, create their own training contract, usually by stints as paralegals. So this is certainly good news for candidates (until they qualify when surely a new bottleneck will emerge). But as far as firms are concerned, this change represents the greatest challenge.

Many firms, including my own, will continue to offer traditional training contracts lasting two years with some sort of seat rotation.

‘Cash in’ QWE

But even these traditional programmes could be affected by QWE. Many trainees will arrive with QWE already under their belt and may later want to ‘cash that in’ and qualify early at their current firm or elsewhere. Firms are already used to trainees applying for time to count of up to six months, but trainees could arrive with 12 or even 18 months’ QWE which is a whole different ballpark in terms of the usual qualification cycle.

It will not always be a problem, of course. A trainee’s wish to qualify early may align with a business need at the firm for a newly qualified solicitor. But I think we are saying goodbye to the neat and tidy qualification round in the autumn which many firms are used to.

And, of course, firms need to think about those in their firm building up QWE outside of formal training contracts, usually paralegals. The firm (via a solicitor or its COLP) has no choice but to confirm QWE if it meets the criteria. But if there is no process in place for dealing with confirmations, even this relatively simple task could turn into an administrative headache.

The best way forward is to create a QWE policy. This needs to answer questions such as who will confirm QWE at the firm and maybe a requirement to keep a QWE record to help the process.

A bigger challenge will be meeting the expectations of employees who build up two years’ QWE at the firm, self-fund themselves through the SQE, and then expect an NQ position with the firm. As with the early qualifying trainee, sometimes this will align with business needs and provide a great opportunity to promote a high-achieving paralegal. But where this is not the case, the potential for disappointment is great. Full and frank conversations at an early stage should take place to ensure all parties are on the same page.

It is also important to understand that QWE does not have to meet the same standard as a training contract under the LPC route. For example, the regulations do not even require candidates to develop all of the solicitor competencies during the course of their QWE (although the SRA has recently clarified that the minimum number is two). And confirmation of QWE by a solicitor does not confirm that the person was competent in that role. They are simply confirming that the person had the opportunity to develop the solicitor competences. The logic behind this is that SQE2 (the skills assessment) tests competence. So looking ahead, recruiters will need to interrogate candidates on the quality of their QWE when interviewing for NQ positions.

The next few years will be interesting. Will the traditional two-year training contract still be seen as the golden ticket, or will candidates prefer to create their own QWE, perhaps deciding early on where they would like to qualify, and spending the entire two years working in that area? In any event, firms must be ready to flex and adapt to the requirements of Gen Z, while perhaps benefiting from the new bottleneck of NQs seeking roles.

Annabel Goh is emerging talent manager (legal director) at Cripps Pemberton Greenish