Just over half of students pass latest SQE1 sitting

requesting a formal parliamentary inquiry to address what I believe constitutes systemic discrimination embedded deep within the structure of legal qualification and recruitment in England and Wales against neurodivergent people (protected under the Equality Act 2010).
Areas for inquiry:
1. Qualification and Assessment
The SQE in its current form disproportionately disadvantages neurodivergent candidates. Timed, high-pressure, standardised testing does not measure legal ability. It measures the capacity to perform under unfair conditions that are inherently hostile to autistic and ADHD minds. Reasonable adjustments as currently offered are cosmetic. Extra time does not address the fundamental unsuitability of the assessment model itself. We need genuinely alternative assessment pathways, portfolio-based, competency-demonstrated, neurodiverse-aware, for candidates with recognised disabilities. These should be developed in consultation with experts and specialists into neurodiversity and different cognitive styles. The format must be different from the start not with adjustments as an afterthought. The exam must be designed in good faith with the neurodiverse community in mind.
2. Work Experience and Networking
The informal pipeline into law, vacation schemes, open days, networking events, relationship-based referrals, structurally excludes neurodivergent candidates who cannot mask effectively in social performance environments. This is discrimination by design. A formal inquiry should examine how work experience gatekeeping and networking dependency constitute barriers that no reasonable adjustment addresses effectively. The concept of reasonable adjustment should be reformed to constitute alternative procedures and protocols for those with recognised disabilities.
3. Recruitment Practices
Law firms routinely screen for cultural fit, presentation, and social fluency, traits that disadvantage autistic and ADHD candidates regardless of their legal aptitude. This requires formal examination and enforceable standards. There are also serious concerns from many sources that the SRA and law firms have colluded to deliberately lower admission rates to the solicitor rolls as a way of keeping billable hour rates artificially much higher by suppressing the admission of new labour force into legal services. In particular, it’s suggested internal documents, communications, and other private communications among senior heads may reveal this. An inquiry should ideally look into any internal and external discussions among major UK law firms and SRA leadership on the numbers of people being admitted and whether that was deliberately tightened at the exclusion of disabled people or minorities. There have been many anonymous discussions that this has been ongoing deliberately to protect profits for partners at major law firms.
4. Workplace Culture
Neurodivergent solicitors and trainees report bullying, gaslighting, and marginalisation within firms that publicly champion diversity. Mandatory neurodiversity awareness training, substantive and not tick-box, should be a regulatory requirement, not a voluntary initiative. There should be an inquiry into workplace bullying, exclusion and harassment of neurodiverse people in the legal sector.
5. Conflict of Interest: The Regulator and Kaplan
A formal review is needed into the relationship between the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Kaplan, the commercial provider contracted to administer the SQE. Kaplan charges candidates thousands of pounds per sitting for what is a computer-administered standardised test. The actual cost of delivery does not justify the fees charged. The SRA, as the regulatory body responsible for setting the qualification framework, has a duty to demonstrate that no conflict of interest exists in its relationship with a private commercial provider profiting substantially from a mandatory qualification. Aspiring solicitors have no alternative provider and no choice but to pay. This requires independent scrutiny.
I am seeking:
∙ A parliamentary inquiry into neurodiversity discrimination across legal qualification, recruitment and workplace culture
∙ A parliamentary inquiry into the financial, personal and business ties (conflicts of interest) between the SRA, Kaplan (the private exam provider company) and partners at UK law firms
∙ Regulatory reform of assessment to include genuinely disability-inclusive alternatives
∙ Enforceable neurodiversity training standards across all regulated law firms with a permanent oversight committee for diversity and inclusion.
∙ Protection for whistleblowers and members of the legal community who fear being blacklisted, harassed, or intimidated for speaking out against discrimination or corruption within law firms and the SRA.
∙ Representation of neurodivergent voices and neurodiversity organisations such as the National Autistic Society in shaping any reforms and permanent placement within any oversight bodies
∙ An independent review into the financial relationship between the SRA and Kaplan and whether the current fee structure represents a conflict of interest or profiteering from a captive candidate pool through a sanctioned monopoly. I have strong suspicions that Kaplan had internal discussions where the pass rate was deliberately calibrated to maximise resits and extract more profit.