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.
Well as a candidate who is currently using Richardson’s platform I’d have to disagree. I’ve already had to fork out ~£2000 to sit this exam, and other providers are also in the thousands. I cannot afford to pay for them on top of the exam, so having a cost-effective platform to compliment my main provider (ULaw) has been a God send. Many others are in the same position. It’s all too expensive, which is one of his main points.
Complement.
The ethical thing is to call out a bad system (designed by an incompetent regulator) like he is doing – oh and then write materials to help students, which they charge hardly anything for (£20!). What have you done?
I have to disagree. In the previous system, City law firms were the gatekeepers determining who got to be a lawyer because they held the power in relation to training contracts. This often led to an arbitrary process, as City law firms were flooded by too many applications and would then weed out applicants on somewhat arbitrary grounds (arbitrary because of the limited time they actually spent with applicants and the very contrived exercises in comparison to the SQE exams). Who hasn’t experienced that in a training contract interview process or assessment centre? For all their flaws, at least the exams level the playing field for all applicants a bit more; even if I agree that there is room for improvement in the areas mentioned in the article.
This is still the case though. Traditional TCs are still offered and remain in extremely high demand. For the vast majority of prospective solicitors, this is what they want as it offers more prestige and access to potential NQ roles. And law firms will favour those whom they invest in through their formal graduate recruitment schemes.
This is then to say that qualifying as a solicitor through SQE and paralegaling/other QWE won’t be a golden ticket to the same opportunities as those who come through the TC route. I think that’s just a reality. There’s no doubt many of those individuals will go on to be amazing solicitors, but it will still be an uphill battle.
As you progress in your TC, and into PQE, your legal education will be a distant and irrelevant memory.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. But at least with the SQE you can become a solicitor and are not relegated to eternal TC attempts while being a paralegal who can do all the work trainee solicitors do:) In the previous system, it took longer to become a solicitor if you didn’t have a training contract and was very expensive too.
But what’s the point in becoming a Solicitor if you then can’t secure an NQ role? This is unfortunately what will happen to a lot of SQE qualified lawyers.
Her videos seem to follow a very negative style, aiming to drive engagement by shocking. But if you look at the youtube view counts they are very low. Some almost in single figures.
Advertorial.
I too was a [talented] paralegal who used it to qualify as a solicitor while working part-time. I thought that was precisely how it was supposed to work and I thought it worked quite well.
I am far from a good student (call me Desmond) and put fairly minimal effort in. I read the textbook, watched the lectures and did the compulsory exercises. I did little else. I felt safe with the possibility of 3 attempts. I passed pretty comfortably first time.
Rejoice for me of course, but that’s not the point. I’m not saying everyone should find it easy, but if I found it that easy then it really cannot be that difficult.
I appreciate that there is quite a low pass rate for SQE1 but I suspect that is due to its improper use, i.e. people still treating it as the LPC and doing it before experience rather then after (at least 2 years – I had been a paralegal for almost 5 years).
Anyway, it allowed me to become a solicitor when I would have otherwise struggled, what with my Desmond.
Sincere congratulations. I think this shows the benefits of the SQE model as it supports those who don’t fit the exact mould but still have great potential to be a solicitor.
Neither of them sat the SQE yet sit on their soapboxes bashing it AND run a business profiting from their bashing. Tiresome and potentially unethical.
The SQE needs calling out. So do the corrupt and incompetent regulators for ramming it through. Sounds like you’re an annoyed SRA employee looking for a promotion…
Surely the unethical thing is not to say anything about the problems and not do anything to fix it…
At least these two are saying that there are problems (and to be fair to them, some silver linings like the in-house qualification route), suggesting some solutions and creating a revision platform for students to do better!
‘The SQA is an unmitigated disaster’ is only news to the same people who are unaware that water is H2O. Frustratingly though, the SRA seems incapable of accepting even a modicum of constructive criticism. It seems to me that they regard it something of a triumph. Frankly, that doesn’t bode well for the profession when the regulator cannot see the inherent issues in the system they’ve designed. Res ipsa loquitur in the broadest sense.
Yes, this is a very basic take. After a bad start the SQE is actually starting to work.
Another point worth making is that at one point Pamely seems to indicate that a good SQE result won’t help you get hired by a law firm. This is wrong. She’s thinking of the LPC, the exam she did back in the day, which wasn’t respected as the law schools were basically marking their own homework. The SQE is robust and respected, and a good result on it will mitigate poor A-level results / mediocre uni etc, which is surely good for meritocracy.
It isn’t a basic take at all. The SQE was, in essence, introduced to chiefly: 1) bring down training costs; 2) reduce barriers to entry, especially to those from underrepresented backgrounds; 3) ensure candidates are trained to a higher standard, with the competencies of a practising solicitor being tested and demonstrated by the candidate; and 4) create a standardised (and thereby robust and reliable) testing and scoring mechanism.
On point 1, it has failed. Including undertaking an in-person preparatory course, the SQE cost is broadly comparable with the LPC.
On point 2, it has failed. Back-to-back reports have shown those from underrepresented groups to perform worse on the SQE assessments than their peers. A big part of this problem is the assessment format, especially for disabled candidates. Despite this being achingly clear, the SRA refuses to action anything to address this fundamental issue.
On point 3, again we are seeing repeated reports of solicitors, training contract supervisors, and others in training and supervisory positions indicating that graduates are no better prepared for the office than their LPC counterparts.
On point 4, whilst it has to some extent achieved this, it could easily have achieved this by simply amending the LPC to make core modules centrally assessed, and creating a more strict criteria for assessing optional modules assessments.
Accordingly, how anyone could suggest that the SQE is working (i.e. that it’s meeting the objectives set out for the course by the SRA) is, respectfully, beyond me.
The real issue with the SQE is the lack of official single revision materials provider. I revised with ULaw with many mocks, constantly hitting 90%-ish then when the real exams come I’d fail and the questions were formulated differently. I now refuse to do again until this is addressed because even though it’s to improve access it’s like £2k for SQE1 alone! I don’t think it’s inherently bad, but it needs a overhaul in the way it’s marked and split into multiple exams that can be done more individually; granular imo
So this is basically a glorified ad for this guys new platform… right
Absolutely right. The SRA forced through the SQE and promised it would solve problems with (1) cost, (2) diversity, (3) access to the profession no longer being a gamble and (4) quality of assessment. NONE of those objectives have been achieved.
The SQE (1) now costs more than the LPC (a £5k set of exams plus if you are paying for law school), (2) has not improved diversity (statistics are shocking for non-white students), (3) has not made it any less of a gamble, and (4) has not been a high quality assessment (Kaplan has messed up administering it, and the same law schools who did the LPC have simply repackaged their offerings for “SQE” courses!)
But despite this, hardly anyone stands up and says anything about it to the regulator. Probably because lawyers are overseen by the SRA and they know not to upset the gravy train. So expect the SRA to find a reason to investigate these two for speaking out…
And they say how much money the SRA and Kaplan are making from this mess. Brave of them to call it out, when they are regulated by the same body