Decision to approve or reject solicitor super-exam delayed AGAIN

By on

9 March 12 April

The regulator’s plans to overhaul legal education suffered a further setback today, after the Legal Services Board (LSB) revealed it needed more time to consider its decision. A new deadline has now been set for 12 April.

In January the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) formally presented its centralised super-exam proposals to the LSB, which is in charge of formally approving or rejecting the regulator’s plans. The LSB had 28 days to make up its mind.

But, then it requested more time. Last month, the LSB wrote to the SRA stating “it “need[s] to extend the initial decision period” to allow the regulator to respond to questions regarding the proposed amendments. A new deadline of 9 March, tomorrow, was set.

Now it appears the LSB’s second deadline may have been a touch too ambitious. In a further letter to the SRA today the LSB’s chief executive, Neil Buckley, said it needed even more time to fully consider its decision having received “additional correspondence regarding the application”.

The 2018 LPC Most List

It has been a rocky road for the regulator’s proposals.

Last April, the SRA announced it would be replacing traditional routes to qualification — i.e. the Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) and Legal Practice Course (LPC) — with the SQE as early as September 2020. The plan is that the new route will be split into two parts (SQE1 and SQE2) and will still require wannabe solicitors to complete a training contract, albeit on a more flexible basis than previously.

Recently, research commissioned by BPP University suggested over three quarters (77%) of law firms believed their rookie lawyer intakes will require additional training on top of the SQE1 test preparation. This is because practical skills currently covered by the LPC are not taught until SQE2, which the SRA has implied will be taught upon completion of a training contact.

Purchase tickets for Legal Cheek’s Future of Legal Education and Training Conference on May 23.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub


Trendspotter 5000

A surprisingly high ratio of content : junk in this article. Well done, Thomas.


This entire article is just one big paraphrase…


This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.


Is it worth doing the lpc starting this September or is it best to wait for the SQE to release, if someone hasn’t secured a training contract yet?


Don’t do the LPC without a training contract: you’re wasting (a) £17k; and (b) a year of your life.


It make sense not to waste £17k on the LPC without a training contract already lined up. But what are your thoughts on the LLM qualification. I’m currently on a gap year, having achieved 2:1 in my law degree but still haven’t secured a training contract. I’m planning on either doing the lpc parttime alongside my current role as a paralegal or taking an llm qualification, which will enable me to do internships (most internships require an llm qualification) and hopefully that will help with getting a training contract at an international law firm. What do guys think, has anyone studied LLM. How did the qualification helped you in finding training contracts etc.

Mohammed Bello

The point of new routes replacing the LPC is still missing the glass ceiling to a training contract for so many with a 2:2 degree. Some jurisdictions allow students to gain substantive work experience in law firms in the latter part of law school, which count towards their full recognition as lawyers. They then become foreign lawyers when they get here after their QLTS. Firms in England lay too much emphasis on a 2:1 requirement and commendation, that otherwise outstanding students are denied access to qualifying as lawyers. If law firms are hell-bent on employing upper-second graduates only, without attaching any significance to the subjective circumstances around their lower-second results, they should do one thing: advise law schools to stop offering places to students with a 2:2. Do that and watch the impact on the British economy. Where is the Equality Act that is meant to thwart discriminatory practices? I left law school 12 years ago and I am still in search of a training contract. I am not alone. My intention from the outset is to establish a practice that weeds out any form of barrier to the profession. Ethnic minorities are the victims of this widespread discriminatory practice and it should cease. If it doesn’t, then perhaps, only people born with a silver spoon in their mouths should be admitted as solicitors. Had I secured a training contract, I would have had one of the leading law firms in this country by now. As long as firms continue to emphasise on a 2:1 degree, they would be killing dreams. Law schools too will reap the rewards of this myopia. If you had financed your legal education whilst maintaing a young family, a mortgage and then work in a night job moulding steel and still managed a 2:2 by a few marks short of a 2:1, then you would feel my pain and that of so many others. If you don’t, you have lost your humanity and moral compass.


This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.


Why would you have a family when you are still a student? This sounds entirely on you buddy. Plus the 2:2 should hardly be a barrier 12 years on.


The Equality argument is nonsense, as there are considerably higher % of BME folks qualifying than their % in the general population.

As to yourself, maybe after 12 years you should accept that it ain’t going to happen? Harsh, but most folks don’t get to live out their dreams…I wanted to be a pro cricketer but realised at 18 that it would never happen…

Wash n Wear

I’m doing the LPC, PSC, and PRT by way of full time employment all at the same time. Two years we’ll spent for a Roll.

Join the conversation

Related Stories