PostsNews

Departing SRA boss says SQE is ‘going really well’

Avatar photo

By Legal Cheek on

26

Paul Philip remains upbeat despite difficulties following rollout


The chief executive of the Solicitors Regulation Authority has said the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) is “going really well” as he prepares to step down at the end of the week — despite technical glitches, marking errors, and low pass rates that have plagued the exam since its rollout several years ago.

Speaking at a conference last week, Paul Philip described the old Legal Practice Course (LPC) system as “broken,” noting that “the standard variation between providers was just too wide.”

“Now we have one assessment provider, and we’re really happy with how it’s going and the quality of the assessment,” he added. He went on to describe the SQE as his “lasting legacy,” according to Law360 UK (£).

Philip, who served as deputy CEO of the General Medical Council before joining the solicitors’ regulator in 2014, said the quality of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) is “very similar to other high-stakes professions,” including medicine.

Philip’s comments follow a turbulent roll out of the SQE as law schools and students continue to grapple with the new regime.

The SQE Hub: Your ultimate resource for all things SQE

Since its introduction in 2021, the SQE has not delivered the smooth rollout the SRA had hoped for. Legal Cheek has previously reported a series of problems, including IT failures at test centres, lengthy online queues for booking exam slots, and what is arguably the most serious error to date — a calculation blunder that wrongly informed 175 students they had failed SQE1.

More recently, a trainee solicitor went as far as launching a public petition calling on the regulator to overhaul the assessment format, citing the “severe toll” it has taken on her mental, financial and physical wellbeing.

On whether the exam was too difficult — with the most recent SQE1 pass rate at a record low of 41% — Philip said: “[L]et’s be honest here, being a solicitor is an important part to play in society. We think it’s important that we have a robust assessment. So actually, from a personal perspective, I think it’s going really well, but the debate continues.”

Referring to a new report which found that solicitor apprentices were among the SQE’s top performers, Philip said the SRA was “really pleased,” noting that “you start to see a degree of social mobility in the profession.”

26 Comments

Major Major Major Major

What hope do you have if your parents can’t even agree to call you Paul or Philip?

Reply Report comment
(40)(5)

Milton

The individuals who would have been of low utility to law firms will continue to whinge but Paul is absolutely right.

The barrier to entry is there to protect the public from low human capital, masquerading as lawyers, playing fast and loose with their legal affairs.

I passed in the top percentile in both exams and I would actually happily have the results published publicly. I think clients should be able to see the competence of the individuals they instruct and sniff out any ropey hires your firm made.

There should be a database where you can search up any qualified solicitors SQE scores and also how many attempts they took. Enough of the snowflakes, I said it before and I will say it again; if you put in the hours, and have what it takes to enter the profession, you will pass this exam.

Good on the apprentices for the social mobility point. Surely people should be celebrating that this limits nepotism to some degree? Partner can’t hire his/her kids if they are too thick to pass the entry exam.

Reply Report comment
(26)(77)

Legaleagle432

I disagree with your first four paragraphs. Anyone who has actually sat those exams knows that they are not an indicator of competence for a legal career. They primarily test memory (including SQE2). I say this as someone who passed SQE1 in the top quintile.

Reply Report comment
(82)(5)

Lewis Silk Cut

But the SQE has little to no correlation with your competence as a solicitor. It simply shows that you can master exam technique. This is of course impressive. But clients don’t want that. The public doesn’t want that. They want good lawyers who get the job done and know what they’re doing.

And that’s why the SQE was a pointless endeavour to replace an already satisfactory system. Executive level lawyers like partners and General Counsel are the true gatekeepers who set the standards of solicitors that work in their organisations. You won’t last long as a solicitor if you don’t meet your employer’s standards or expectations.

I have no doubt the SQE was introduced simply because the SRA wanted to shake up the landscape to remain relevant, rather than improving standards in the profession.

Reply Report comment
(47)(6)

NBA Youngboy

So what do you suggest then? The SQE is a standardised test and is doing its job. I saw this is someone who score 500% and was in the top top top top percentile in SQE1, SQE2, SQE3 and SQE4

Reply Report comment
(1)(10)

Milson

Show us your results then Milton. Otherwise, your comment is about as credible as a Rachel Reeves statement.

Reply Report comment
(26)(0)

Anon

Harsh but fair. SQE results are not all random.

Reply Report comment
(4)(2)

Larry Lawless

You sound like the most loathsome creature Milton, exactly what lay people despise about the legal profession. I can’t imagine anyone writing the sentence “low human capital” unironically, I mean honestly, you sound like a eugenicist.

Just because you’re so delusionally self-important doesn’t mean your chosen career path warrants a prohibitively difficult exam. Let’s be honest, lawyers aren’t nearly as important as you and many of them think, they’re effectively gloried administrators who don’t get to where they are through being geniuses or having brilliant recall but through daily repetition in a specific practice area for 20 years until they become excellent. Just because someone has failed this exam doesn’t mean they won’t one day be an excellent solicitor, ergo, it’s not an effective determination of competence.

Besides, there are lawyers and lawyers. I know plenty of 20+ PQE lawyers from MC to high Street and most would struggle with this exam, it doesn’t make them incompetent.

Reply Report comment
(17)(5)

Anonymous

Sums it all up. No accountability, ignoring all of the problems with the exam. Although there are some good elements to it, there is still a lot to be done. However, the SRA won’t do anything about it.

Also, I don’t understand how the SQE increases social mobility at all. Look at the cost of passing the exam (exam itself, course providers, extra mocks due to the SRA’s vague specification).

Reply Report comment
(32)(0)

sneed

Frog says the water is nice and warm

Reply Report comment
(10)(0)

Paul Out

I haven’t seen a more calamitous person in a position of power like Paul Philip since Erik Ten Hag at United

Reply Report comment
(15)(0)

Dansk

Something no one has ever been able to explain to me, and I would gladly know the answer: why couldn’t/wouldn’t the SRA fix the LPC, and instead opted for a brand new qualification and assessment?

Reply Report comment
(25)(0)

Gdansk

Because at the core it was never about fixing the LPC. The LPC wasn’t broken. It was a fit for purpose system for a path to admission.

The reason for a wholesale change was likely political, with conversations happening behind closed doors about how fit for purpose the SRA is in achieving its statutory objectives and public policy goals. The SRA, to be seen as a competent regulator, then would have developed the SQE to demonstrate its capability of managing public policy initiatives. It wants to be the hero in its own story.

It’s not surprising. Around the same time Ofcom and the FCA were developing significant changes in their industries too (e.g. Consumer Duty for FS) due to mounting public and political pressure. I suspect the SRA wants to remain as relevant as these regulators. Enter SQE.

Reply Report comment
(21)(0)

Ines

He’s lucky he isn’t being sued and no one has uninstalled from life from this stupid exam (that we know of).
Can he justify why each provider has such differing content on the syllabus? No one knows for sure what’s examinable and are just guessing.
The government needs to strip the SRA of qualification powers as well.

Reply Report comment
(17)(4)

Guys come on just work harder

Sued for what? Best to stick to karaoke.

Reply Report comment
(0)(3)

Anonymous

Milton,
Your comment about needing a barrier to entry to ensure a high standards is fair, but you place too high an emphasis on the role of the SQE in career competence.
It tests some important skills as a barrier for entry, but by no means reflects competence as a lawyer.
For instance, many of us work in fields of law not even mentioned (let alone tested) by SQEs, and rely on a skill set and experience that differs from the exams. Using a snapshot of pre-day 1 experience to imply a level of competence for one’s career would be wildly misleading in many cases.

Reply Report comment
(16)(1)

Dorrens

The essaray need to wake up and smell the coffi. This is not stainable.

Reply Report comment
(3)(0)

Archibald O'Pomposity

Milton is correct. The SQE, despite some unfortunate and unforgivable hiccups, really is separating the wheat from the chaff. Nobody wants an incompetent lawyer to interfere with their private parts.

Reply Report comment
(4)(10)

University Lecturer in Law

Let’s not forget also that the SRA has made an absolute fortune from taking control of the assessment process and charging a huge amount of money for every exam taken. It was a massive exercise is lining their own pockets.

I had many objections to the SQE when it came out, but one is also this flawed argument about improved access to the profession. If you make the exam sufficiently rigorous, as they said they would, then you will get a lot of entrants who cannot afford proper training and will fail, and will need to retake. It starts to get prohibitively expensive when you need to retake. So there’s always a balance between rigour and access, where neither is truly satisfied.

Furthermore, as we all know, qualification doesn’t mean anything on its own anymore. It’s about getting and keeping work. Creating a market of newly qualified candidates doesnt magically create high paying jobs for them. They still need to prove their skills, abilities and experience.

Also, yes the SQE COULD be cheaper if you use cheap training, self study and pass first time. But a large % of the fees paid with SQE goes to the SRA. With the LPC, the fees went on staff wages and generating jobs at universities and training centres across the country. The exams were not a huge chunk of where the money goes, but the actual training and skills education – as it should be – was where all the money went.

There are so many other flaws and problems, I just don’t have time to sit and drone on.

As someone who did the LPC, but has been a university lecturer to thousands of law students since, I can confirm that I also signed the petition to finally shut down this atrocious money-making exercise and return to a proper, full vocational training scheme which is run by educators, not by money-grabbing regulators.

Reply Report comment
(17)(1)

Archibald O'Pomposity

“I can confirm that I also signed the petition to finally shut down this atrocious money-making exercise and return to a proper, full vocational training scheme which is run by educators, not by money-grabbing regulators.”

Signing a petition ranks second only to prayer on the list of ineffectual actions taken by people who want to fight a cause without taking any risk or getting their hands dirty.

Reply Report comment
(2)(4)

James

Everyone needs to shut their mouths. Piss easy exam

Reply Report comment
(2)(7)

Evangelos Marinakis

Big Ange at Forest

Reply Report comment
(0)(0)

Garden Man

I’m an old fart. I sat the now very old Law Society Finals, 40 years ago. It was very tough, a huge amount of knowledge to absorb, and with a lot of exams over about 8-10 days. I knew it would be tough. I didn’t bitch and moan, I just got on with it. I didn’t see it at the time but those rigorous exams prepared me very well indeed for my admitted career. Maybe today’s candidates should reflect on what the future might hold… if you don’t know then I will tell you. Some clients are lovely to deal with. Others are awkward, demanding, abrasive, entitled, rude, they expect you to know everything and to solve all their problems, they’re your best friend – until you send them a bill and then they find any excuse not to pay you. What are you going to do, start a petition? Complain on here? Milton is bang on. You need to be tough to deal with this sort of thing.

Reply Report comment
(2)(3)

Archibald O'Pomposity

Keeping the mediocrity out of practice is one of the most important tasks faced by the SRA. Everything you say is correct. The entitled mediocrity will not have the resilience, intellectual ability or perspective to handle the reality of practice.

Reply Report comment
(2)(5)

Ines

So everyone that didn’t do the SQE or law Society finals is an inferior lawyer, nice.

Reply Report comment
(5)(0)

Garden Man

Logic appears not to be your strong point.

Reply Report comment
(1)(3)

Join the conversation

Related Stories

Online exam
news SQE Hub

Solicitor apprentices rank among top SQE performers, report finds

Achieving higher scores and pass rates than non-apprentice candidates

Oct 27 2025 7:53am
11
news SQE Hub

Lack of SQE funding turning aspiring lawyers away from criminal law

'Looming generational crisis,' study finds

Oct 28 2025 8:54am
7
Online exam
news SQE Hub

SRA defends use of MCQs in SQE exams

Regulator says approach is fair, efficient and not just recall

Sep 24 2025 11:34am
26