PostsComment

‘LPC grads are getting left behind in the SQE switch — and no one’s talking about it’

Avatar photo

By Frustrated LPC Graduate on

27

Aspiring lawyer voices frustration over transitional arrangements


We did everything right. We wrote the “Why law?” essays, jumped through the assessment centre hoops, charmed grad recruitment, and secured the training contract. Finally, we were on the path to qualification.

Except… the path moved. And the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) didn’t leave us a map.

‘Congrats on the TC! Now please start from scratch.’

When I was offered my training contract, I had already completed the LPC, the standard vocational route at the time. The understanding was simple: finish the LPC, complete your two years of training, and you’d qualify.

Then came the SQE.

At first, the SRA said LPC graduates didn’t need to sit the new exams — we could still qualify under transitional arrangements. Then firms began shifting their internal processes, and suddenly many of us were told we had to sit SQE2, regardless of the route we’d started on.

And here’s the problem: in my view the SQE2 exam is not designed for LPC graduates. Not even close.

An exam built for a different cohort

The SQE was introduced with big promises: to create a single, standardised path to qualification that would open the profession and level the playing field. Laudable goals. But in reality, LPC grads have been shoved awkwardly into a system that was never built with us in mind.

The SQE2 assumes that you’ve just done SQE1 — that your legal knowledge is fresh, and that you’ve studied the specific topics as defined by the SRA’s Functioning Legal Knowledge (FLK) framework. That’s what most prep courses are tailored for.

But we didn’t do SQE1. We did the LPC, which, while comprehensive, does not exactly mirror the SQE1 syllabus.

Yet no SQE2 prep course teaches the legal knowledge underpinning the assessments. Why? Because they assume you already know it from SQE1.

So, if you’re an LPC graduate, you’re on your own. There’s no formal refresher. No syllabus comparison. No bridging materials. Just skills-based prep with an occasional nod to legal content, but no real way of knowing whether your LPC knowledge actually aligns with the SQE’s expectations.

It’s like sitting a French oral exam where the marking scheme is based on Canadian French, but you learned Parisian French, and no one bothered to tell you the difference.

The numbers don’t lie

Let’s look at the data.

In the April 2024 SQE2 sitting, LPC grads had a 36% pass rate. In the July 2024 sitting, the figure was 44%.

Meanwhile, those who followed the full SQE route, including SQE1, passed at rates of 74% in July and 79% in April.

These aren’t small gaps. They’re gaping holes in the system.

And what they show is that despite having already completed a full-time vocational course (often costing up to £17,000), we’re still failing the final exam — not because we’re unprepared in general, but because the system isn’t built for us. The SRA has failed to think through the transition. If it had, LPC graduates wouldn’t be floundering in a system where the prep materials, course assumptions, and exam structures are all based on a path we didn’t take.

“Transitional arrangements” — in name only

The SRA says we can still qualify under transitional arrangements. In theory, that’s true. In practice, firms have moved on.

Many employers have now internalised the SQE as their formal qualification route and if your firm has adopted SQE2 as the final step, your only option is to sit the exam.

So, what do you do?

You fork out another £2,500–£4,000 for a prep course that doesn’t teach the law. You try to self-study the entire FLK syllabus, hoping that your LPC notes cover what the exam might ask. You sit an exam in which legal knowledge is assessed indirectly, through tasks like client interviews, legal drafting and advocacy, but where the underlying legal knowledge is critical to scoring well.

And then, like many of us, you fail. Not because you didn’t study. Not because you’re not competent. But because no one told you that the rules had changed.

A regulatory afterthought

The most frustrating part is that this was entirely avoidable. The SRA knew there would be thousands of LPC graduates still qualifying during the transition period. It could have:

  • Created bridging materials between the LPC and SQE1 syllabuses;

  • Encouraged prep providers to design tailored SQE2 courses for LPC grads;

  • Issued clearer guidance to firms about supporting trainees qualifying through the LPC route;

  • Provided realistic timelines and funding for those being forced to switch routes mid-way.

    • We are not the exception — we are the forgotten majority

    LPC graduates are not a niche group. We’re thousands strong. Many of us have spent years, and small fortunes, training under a framework that was, until very recently, the only route to qualification. To be cast aside now, told to retake assessments that don’t match our training, and to foot the bill for a system change we didn’t ask for, feels not just unfair, it feels like neglect.

    The SQE may well be the future. But we are still here. Still qualified. Still capable. Just not supported. It’s time for the SRA to admit it hasn’t thought this through. Because if the goal is to produce competent, confident solicitors, shouldn’t we start by giving them the tools to succeed?

    27 Comments

    Anon

    It’s no secret that the SQE has been an unmitigated disaster. I’ve even seen and heard numerous partners and recruiters say precisely that. Yet, the SRA is (unsurprisingly) unwilling to accept that they got it wrong in any way, shape, or form.

    In fact, I emailed the SRA to enquire about several parts of the SQE, the relevant processes, and review periods. Not a single piece of criticism was taken on board by them (including very serious comments on the potential for the SQE to increase, rather than decrease, barriers and discrimination for students), my questions weren’t answered (including being told that disabled applicants won’t be told if certain adjustments are even theoretically possible until they’ve already paid the fees), and the overarching attitude was seemingly one of “we’re right, everyone else is wrong”. Frankly, it’s shameful and a woeful stance to take.

    My understanding is that there’s something like another 8/9yrs at least until they carry out their large-scale review of the success of the SQE. I would, therefore, be minded to suggest that anyone and everyone with concerns should write to the SRA to ensure such failures and shortcomings are well-documented. All they had to do was modify the LPC to address what were, relatively speaking, minor concerns regarding teaching and outcome quality. Instead, they’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater and created a monster of a course, which is entirely inappropriate, and tests memory and ability to regurgitate an unconscious stream of syllabus, rather than testing in any meaningful way ones ability to become a successful and well-adjusted solicitor by the end of their training contract.

    Reply Report comment
    (57)(3)

    SQE survivor

    Passed SQE1 first time and just sat SQE2. You don’t need to do a prep course to pass SQE 1 or learn the relevant FLK for SQE2. Just purchase some books (Revise SQE are good) and get your head down….

    Reply Report comment
    (15)(40)

    mid-level associate

    I think the point is not that the SQE is impossible, but that an LPC grad – who understood the academic phase of their qualification path to be completed – would quite reasonably be annoyed to discover that they’re now expected to sit a further exam. Not only that, but an exam aimed at testing rote knowledge of black letter law, rather than the practical application of skills learned on the course they already completed, the one which was, you know, designed to teach skills, not produce human text books.

    Reply Report comment
    (52)(0)

    Uncharitable Fellow

    At this point I would support a full public enquiry into how the SRA is no longer fit for purpose:
    1) Disastrous introduction of the SQE with no lessons learned and no feedback taken into account
    2) Continued refusal to publish results by provider despite previous commitment
    3) Passive regulation approach leading to the collapse of Axiom Ince
    4) Demonstrable double enforcement standards between junior and senior practitioners.

    Hand it all over to the LSB and call it a day.

    Reply Report comment
    (51)(1)

    Grad Wreck

    Isn’t the issue here with the firm you have a training contract with, rather than the SRA?

    1. Your firm has chosen not to allow you qualify under the LPC route after recruiting you on that basis if I have understood that right. That’s a decision your firm has made. Nothing to do with the SRA.

    2. If your firm is asking you to pass SQE2 (even after you have gained the LPC), then it should pay for you to do a preparation course. Again, nothing to do with the SRA.

    In fairness, the SRA have allowed anyone who has gained the LPC to be exempt from SQE1. That seems reasonable.

    Reply Report comment
    (19)(22)

    Anonymous

    The exemption from SQE1 doesn’t amount to much of a benefit. SQE2 is the more expensive exam of the two and is impossible to pass without learning / revising the content from SQE1. LPC grad here who passed SQE2 – I could have passed the skills part of SQE2 blindfolded, it was memorising the knowledge that was the real challenge.

    Reply Report comment
    (8)(1)

    Grad Wreck

    I’m sure that 100% of LPC graduates would prefer to be exempt from SQE1, than not be.

    My point in the post above though is that all the gripes in the article are actually a result of decisions the author’s firm has made. The SRA isn’t forcing the firm to do any of the things affecting the author.

    Reply Report comment
    (4)(5)

    Anony

    Grad Wreck, have you sat either of these exams?

    Reply Report comment
    (0)(2)

    Grad Wreck

    To explain, people who work in Recruitment, HR etc tend not to be solicitors. Most will have studied the professional exams for HR – CIPD. You would only take the SQE if you intended to be a solicitor. You don’t need to sit these exams to work in HR/Recruitment.

    I’m not naive your insinuation, but it’s not right way to think about it. People will sit the relevant exams for their profession.

    Anonymous

    It is the law firms fault in the first instance and directly. But law firms are also the victims of this SQE disaster – I’m sure it’s costly and creates awkward governance to have different qualifying paths for a number of reasons. To manage that is additional cost. The SRA didn’t care about those things, as I understand the SRA was more concerned with the idea of shaking things up to justify its existence to the LSB. It failed in that regard too.

    Reply Report comment
    (10)(2)

    TheyGoThatsJohnDoe

    Back in 2021 when the SQE had just been introduced, I found myself in a precarious position of either going down a route which was being phased out or being the guinea pig for a new untested system.

    I was genuinely unsure. But I did opt for the new system, with the thinking that it would be ‘future proof’. However, I opted to give it some time before actually entering the SQE; as of 2025, I have not yet attempted the SQE and am currently working whilst doing an LLM at LSE. For context, back in 2021 I had just finished an accelerated LLB qualification.

    In a broad general sense, I actually support the introduction of the SQE. The pass rates for the LPC varied too widely between different providers: ULAW/BPP in London was about 80% and cost circa £18K. City University was much less (the actual cost escapes me), South Bank also, but their pass rates were a lot lower. In other words, simply by virtue of going to BPP or ULaw, you had a markedly better chance of passing the LPC. This manifestly meant an inconsistency in approach. The LPC from one provider to the next varied in terms of the course specifics and the test specifics; this means that whilst 2 people may have passed the LPC, it is clearly not an apple’s for apple’s comparison. The principle of standardisation in the SQE is to be welcomed, and it is the same in professions like accounting (ACCA), and Finance (CFA). 2 candidates aspiring to become accountants (lets say) should sit the same exam; I consider this to be self-evident. The fact that the legal profession operated in such a way for so long is surely the peculiarity here. Happy to hear differences of opinion here.

    However, the introduction of the SQE leaves a lot to be desired. Far greater consideration should have been exercised for those who would fall within the transitional arrangements. Similarly, the SQE gives candidates three attempts in a 6 year period. One of the aims was to make the legal profession more accessible for candidates from different socioeconomic circumstances. I welcome this principle, but the execution of it has been woefully inadequate.

    For those under the LPC route, who find themselves in this precarious position, stay strong 💪!

    Reply Report comment
    (4)(11)

    Daisy2025

    The LPC route should be the only route to qualification. It is a thorough course. Which tests legal knowledge and skills. No point changing exams for the sake of it.

    Also, the training period should be reduced to 18mths.

    Reply Report comment
    (17)(7)

    Hope

    I was on the same foot really. I did my LPC accelerated in 2020 (nobody forced me and I didn’t have a TC at the time, I just wanted to get it done quickly.)

    I think the best approach for LPC graduates to qualify would be if they completed a 2-year QWE as a paralegal and then do the SQE2 (assuming they satisfy the transitional requirements). And there, you’re qualified without a TC. There are firms available that are willing to sign you off your time as QWE and as a paralegal you do the same things as a trainee, except you don’t do rotations.

    That’s what I did. And yes, it was hard to find an NQ position without a TC as most big firms would never pick you, but the market varies and there’s plenty of in-house options which don’t really care whether you qualified through LPC/TC, LPC/SQE2/QWE or any other combo.

    Don’t let your hopes down! For people that do the SQE2 part time, a 7-month period to cover both the law and skills is sufficient (and 4 months for full time).

    It sucks, I know. But you can do it!

    Reply Report comment
    (4)(0)

    AnonymousSaul

    The problem is that while the LPC exempts you from SQE 1, you still have to pay for SQE 2 which including the prep course is approx £7000, which you risk losing if you fail, where the stats aren’t promising… and for a course that’s dependent on have recently learned the underlying law in SQE1 (Umm what??!)

    There’s no student finance available as you’ve already spent it on the LPC (assuming you did an LLM) so you have to self fund and accumulate even more risk amd debt (with what money!!)

    Many firms now make the QWE sign off earned through TC. If we’re making winning a TC a thing for QWE then why are we paying extra for SQE 2 when previously we only need the LPC (SQE 1 equivalent) and a TC.

    Now we need an LPC AND an extra SEQ 2 and a TC format to gain QWE through.

    Make it make sense!

    Reply Report comment
    (6)(0)

    Consider an alternative?

    LPC grads who are paralegals or similar should seriously consider the Equivalent Means route. Other than the PSC, there’s no studying and even with that, certainly not to the intensity of the LPC.

    Reply Report comment
    (0)(0)

    Future Trainee CMS

    Honestly, this is one of the rare times Legal Cheek has actually put out something worth reading.

    The SQE rollout has been a shambles. It’s completely shafted people who already have the LPC, especially those who’ve been chasing TCs for years. Now, suddenly, they’re being told they need to pass SQE2 just to stand a chance, competing against recent grads who were funneled straight into the SQE route.

    And let’s be clear: this isn’t just the SRA’s fault anymore, it’s the firms. They’re the ones making the transition brutal. Some are treating the LPC like it doesn’t even exist, pushing candidates into doing the SQE when they legally don’t need to. A growing number of firms are quietly enforcing their own version of the rules. It’s tone-deaf and lazy.

    My advice? Don’t guess — contact grad rec. When I did a vacation scheme at White & Case, they told me I’d still need to do the SQE. But CMS? They didn’t care. This made it easier when choosing which TC to accept. So it really depends on the firm.

    And to the people who’ve done the SQE, passed, and are now looking down on LPC grads struggling to navigate this mess: don’t be delusional. Just because your path was different doesn’t make this situation fair or simple. You’re not smarter, you were just dealt a different hand.

    For everyone out there with an LPC still grinding for a TC, I get it. I’ve been there. It’s draining and demoralising.

    Wishing you all the best of luck, seriously.

    Reply Report comment
    (11)(0)

    Anonymous

    There is always the Equivalent Means option for LPC people who (i) don’t have a TC and (ii) don’t want to do the SQE2 (iii) have a supervisor that will review their portfolio. Maybe not an ideal route for all – but ultimately the SRA has no control on firms sunsetting the LPC qualification route. At least it’s another option for aspiring solicitors with LPC.

    I really didn’t want to do SQE2 and Equivalent Means was best for me.

    Reply Report comment
    (0)(1)

    Rob

    I have no doubt LPC Grads will be disadvantaged without studying the SQE1 syllabus, albeit SQE1 is similar to degree level.

    My real question however is why are firms asking LPC grads with training contracts to sit SQE2?

    If nothing else, firms are spending on exam fees which they do not need to?

    Reply Report comment
    (6)(0)

    Anon

    It’s all justified as ‘everyone needs the be on the same path – we do not want to create distinctions between LPC qualified lawyers and SQE qualified lawyers.’

    Reply Report comment
    (0)(2)

    Anonymous

    If only the woke brigade did not stick their oar in. As they say in Quebec, ça a pas d’allure.

    Reply Report comment
    (1)(4)

    We All Have Opposable Thumbs

    I’m sorry but the premise of this post is flawed. Here’s why:

    1. The SRA is a regulatory body. They are there to upkeep standards in the profession not get grads jobs. They set the standard and us graduates have to reach it.

    2. Speaking of setting standards, the SRA has made it clear that the SQE will be examined to a higher standard than the LPC. So LPC Grads fall into two groups:-

    2.1. You’ve just passed LPC. Your legal knowledge is fresh. You should be expecting to be examined on things you may not have previously covered and prepare appropriately; or

    2.2 You took the risk of sitting your LPC before securing a TC and have been chasing one for years. In that case your legal knowledge is likely out of date anyway.

    3. The SRA doesn’t provide preparatory materials for any students and I’m not sure why LPC grade should be privileged with ‘bridging materials’. Admittedly LPC grads have already invested money in their vocational diploma but this means they should be ahead and not behind the curve.

    4. SQE is a self-study qualification. If you paid for a prep course and it was inadequate to prepare you I think that is between you and the prep course provider, not the regulator who sets the exams.

    5. Finally, the transitional arrangements do actually work. You don’t have to have sat the SQE2 to qualify – as a previous poster mentioned it is the firms that are imposing this requirement. Surely your truck should be with them.

    TL;DR the SQE is about simultaneously raising standards and opening up the profession. The only way you do that is by more rigorous exams, and LPC grads should be aware of this. If your firm imposes an additional requirement to your TC then that’s between you and your firm, and it’s up to you to figure out what you need to succeed and enlist the help of your firm to achieve it. You don’t have to take the contract. If you’re investing in prep courses that don’t prepare you, that is between you and your provider.

    Don’t blame the regulator because you didn’t pass their exams. Others have done it and are doing it.

    Reply Report comment
    (7)(8)

    disgruntled 3pqe

    Nicely laid out post. Competent human here and yourself.

    It’s reasonable to be frustrated with the woke drivel that deskwarmers have had drive forwards the SQE. That said, if you apply to firms that aren’t the worst offenders (won’t name – but you’ve had your chances to improve) you are less likely to have the worst of the SQE issues. I did the LPC and you can get a distinction with legacy notes to hand. I don’t think the SQE is producing better intakes for firms – this view is shared with partners. It’s dishonest to stand by the claim of the SRA that it’s to improve access to the professsion.

    Reply Report comment
    (1)(0)

    Anonymous

    Did Julie Brannan post this? Lol. Clearly the poster is a bit out of touch with market regulation vs reality.

    The SQE is not at all what is described in this post – it might be how it’s presented to the market but it’s far from the truth. Classroom based education and examination is definitely NOT what increases standards of solicitors (regardless of LPC or SQE). You will only start becoming a good solicitor no earlier than 5PQE and once you have countless experiences of being belittled by clients, bullied by seniors/partners and learning from failures in your legal advice. Those are the real tests of standards.

    Reply Report comment
    (1)(1)

    Charlotte

    This is utterly ridiculous. The Law Society should insist that firms cannot require previously qualified grads through the LPC route to begin again through some spurious requirement for duplicating qualifications. Where is The Law Society in all this? This seems like a money making attempt to ramp up the poor status of the new qualification which has already been called out as inferior. Any grads applying to firms should first check the firm does not require an SQE qualification in addition to the, considered by many, superior LPC. HR are giving themselves a job where there is none. It needs stopping in its tracks!

    Reply Report comment
    (6)(2)

    Grad Rec

    Coming from a Law Firm Early Careers perspective, the reason is that it would be completely impractical for the business to try and manage trainees qualifying through two wildly different methods in the same cohort. The SQE and LPC have very different supervision and sign off requirements (as well as trying to factor in PSC for LPC grads), it’s simply not feasible for most firms to balance this. We’d obviously prefer to take candidates straight from LPC without having to fund an SQE2 and put the future Trainee under additional stress, but the SRA’s transitional arrangements don’t really give us any other practical options.
    I have huge sympathy for LPC grads caught in the early transition who have been searching for a TC for a while, but I do question why anyone (aside from a limited number with specific reasons e.g. neurodiverse candidates who struggle with SBAQs) would have done an LPC past around 2023 when it was clear that LPC style TCs were few and far between. I think that the SRA’s messaging, as well as Law Schools continuing to sell LPCs are partially responsible here. It seems irresponsible to allow large numbers of students to do LPC when they have little chance of qualifying through that alone.
    It’s unfortunately clear that the SQE isn’t really working for anyone.

    Reply Report comment
    (4)(2)

    An

    LPC completed in August 2021!

    Reply Report comment
    (0)(1)

    Anon

    You’ve mentioned something there which I cannot get my head around.

    Regarding the SQE exams and one reason why a student might wish to complete the LPC instead, your comment is “aside from a limited number with specific reasons e.g. neurodiverse candidates who struggle with SBAQs”.

    Now, we all know the SQE hasn’t achieved its goal of opening up the profession to underrepresented groups. In fact, it has created more barriers and made it harder for certain groups, especially those with certain disabilities (as you have pointed out).

    Given that this is not a secret and anyone with half a brain can plainly see it therefore grossly disadvantages such people, including many others with different conditions which equally do not mix well with such exams, why has there been no vocalisation, backlash, or otherwise, from law firms? Shouldn’t the very people saying they champion inclusivity and equality be greatly concerned about the effect this will have on who is dissuaded from applying for a training contract?

    It seems to me to be such a poor show from the SRA, and certainly not an issue which would not have been within their contemplation when the SQE was constructed and going through the various consultation periods. Why is this not an issue which is receiving the attention it deserves? It strikes me that there will likely be many extraordinarily gifted people who are being put off of applying for TC’s precisely because of this plainly unfair testing method the SRA has decided to use.

    Reply Report comment
    (1)(0)

    Join the conversation

    Related Stories

    news SQE Hub

    SQE2 pass rate hits 75% in latest results

    Sat by 1,134 students

    May 29 2025 8:43am
    9
    news SQE Hub

    SQE grads seem to be a bit worse than their LPC counterparts, say top law firms

    Drafting and research skills appear to lag under new regime, according to exclusive Legal Cheek research

    May 15 2025 6:24am
    31
    news SQE Hub

    Super-regulator demands SQE provider pass rate transparency by Autumn 2025

    SRA delay draws criticism

    Apr 1 2025 10:19am
    3