Ex-Hogan Lovells and Linklaters lawyers slam the SQE
Two former City lawyers have teamed up to demand an overhaul of the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE).
James Richardson and Helen Pamely, who trained and worked at Hogan Lovells Cadwalader and Linklaters respectively, argue that the SQE is too hard, too expensive and doesn’t reflect legal practice. Speaking on the Lawyer Unleashed Podcast, they also say it has failed in one of its stated aims of increasing diversity in the profession.
Particularly damning, given the duo’s backgrounds at big law firms, is the suggestion made by Richardson that the SQE has made qualifying “much harder in this really weird way that doesn’t actually reflect what it’s like to become a lawyer”.
The ex-Hogan M&A specialist, who now works in-house for an insurtech company, elaborates:
“So if you look at the SQE1 exam, now that’s a load of multiple choice questions. You’ve got five possible answers, one of which is the single best answer, and the others are kind of plausible but a bit distracting and not quite right. And that just does not reflect what a lawyer does.”
He adds: “They mix up all these questions. So you’ll go in and you’ll have a question, and you’ll have 90 seconds to answer a question on criminal practice, and then you’ll have one on trust law, and then you’ll have one on civil litigation, and it just goes on and on like that, and it’s, um, it’s incredibly hard to do. So no wonder loads of people are, are failing.”
Responding, Pamely says:
“My head actually genuinely hurts hearing you say that. This idea that you’ve got these multiple choice questions. As you say, no one’s ever gonna walk into your office and say, ‘Here are five potential answers. Which one is it?’ All of which are probably very similar but slightly different. And also to the second point you just said there, never would you have to answer a question on criminal and then wills and trusts. This whole thing just, who made this? Why have they done it this way?”
While the podcast focuses largely on the negatives of the SQE, Richardson does acknowledge that it has provided students with greater flexibility. He gives the example of a talented paralegal in his team using it to qualify as a solicitor while working part-time.
What neither Richardson or Pamely does ponder on, though, is the wider goal of the SQE to centrally assess the exam to becoming a solicitor, marking a break from the old Legal Practice Course (LPC) regime which saw individual law schools award grades in a way that sometimes lacked consistency. Whatever you think about the SQE — and there have been some truly awful teething problems, not least from the assessor Kaplan — most agree this step was sensible, bringing England & Wales in line with the US and other major common law jurisdictions.
Removing assessment power from law schools is also expected to create more competition in the exam prep market, and as a result lower prices. We are already seeing this in the explosion of SQE companion apps and websites. Indeed, Richardson himself is behind one of these, recently launching a company called Law Student Academy, that promises to help students “confidently pass the SQE first time” if they pay “a single, affordable subscription”.
Nothing other than deliber8, designed to put more barriers towards new entrants. Never thought the LPC / BVC would be ‘the good old days’
Not sure about the ethics of making a very one-sided criticism of the SQE and then trying to flog students stuff with promise to help them pass. This guy owes the SRA for his business model.