Positive report
The Solicitor Qualifying Examination (SQE) has received a positive verdict from its independent reviewer, with the 2025 running of the SQE described as “good” and showing improvement on previous years.
In his annual report, independent reviewer Ricardo Lé found no significant major across the two SQE1 and four SQE2 sittings delivered last year, describing the assessments as “robust and defensible” and concluding that candidates, stakeholders and the public should have confidence in the fairness of this year’s results.
The report praised the continued collaboration between the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and assessment provider Kaplan, noting a commitment to “continual improvement” rather than settling into routine delivery. Growing candidate numbers have driven much of this development, it noted, with Kaplan expanding its academic team and offering two written SQE2 sittings for the first time in April 2025 to meet demand.
It also highlighted meaningful progress on candidate support, with a streamlined reasonable adjustments process introduced last summer delivering a substantial rise in candidate satisfaction scores. New practice materials and guidance were also published, alongside workshops for third-party preparation providers to improve the quality of study resources available to candidates.
However, the report did identify one outstanding concern. The absence of a spell checker function in SQE2 written exams — flagged in previous reviews — remains unresolved, with the independent reviewer stressing that its rollout should be treated as a matter of “urgency”. Testing of a new browser-based platform that could support the feature is underway, with implementation potentially possible before the end of 2026.
Looking ahead, the reviewer called for continued focus on monitoring the quality of online marking sessions as candidate numbers grow further in 2026, as well as greater efforts to improve candidates’ understanding of why the assessments are designed the way they are.
First I’ve heard of spellcheck being the issue with SQEs.
I’m in the camp that didn’t find the exams offensively challenging, although I accept that some concerns must be legitimate. But surely, absent some legitimate condition, we should expect our solicitors to be able to spell.
I make some allowance for those who take the exams in Welsh.
I take back that last comment; apparently no one has.
Thank you for your helpful input.
No, thank you for your heart-warming gratitude.
From the neurodiverse community I thank you for your discriminatory views, should a document go out with spelling and grammar issues? No, should I care if my lawyer can spell also no. Can they do the job and do it well is my concern not if they can spell. Honestly I am fortunate to have a tc with an international firm that provided spell and grammar software as honestly spelling is very minor with the support of today.
I thought I had addressed that point with “absent some legitimate condition”, but perhaps I could have been clearer.
Perhaps they also find reading a struggle!
The independent reviewer doesn’t actually look at the content of the exam syllabus. Nor are they legally qualified, and so cannot evaluate whether the exam fairly and properly prepares people to be ‘Day 1 Solicitors’. So basically, the ‘review’ is just a bunch of pseudo-academic, corporate-speak PR mumbojumbo to make it appear everything is being done professionally and smoothly.
Meanwhile candidates are being expected to memorise every litigation deadline, tax rate and exemption/relief to be considered competent as a ‘Day 1 Solicitor’ (before they even begin training lol)
I can tell you from experience that you can comfortably pass the exams without knowing a single deadline or much about tax (or solicitors accounts for that matter).
And don’t worry, I’m not practicing (I’m perfect enough as it is).
This is very positive. Kaplan and the SRA are moving away from the initial teething problems. I hope the SQE maintains its standard in order to screen out the many unsuitable candidates who want to practise law. Those candidates will make a lot of noise, that’s for sure, but in the end they won’t be instructed by clients – and that is what matters, both for clients and the profession as a whole.