Spoiler alert: it hasn’t
The Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) has announced changes to SQE1, cutting the number of questions from 360 to 340 after candidates raised concerns that the assessment can feel rushed and pressurised.
In the latest podcast episode, Legal Cheek writer Nadia Ismail sits down with editor Tom Connelly to discuss the changes, drawing on Nadia’s own experience of preparing for and sitting SQE1 under the existing format.
With candidates set to face 20 less questions from January 2027, the pair consider whether the changes go far enough and what actually makes SQE1 such a demanding assessment.
Does cutting the question count really make the exam easier? How much of the challenge comes from time pressure and the sheer volume of material rather than the number of questions itself? And should candidates be given greater flexibility over how they sit SQE1?
The discussion also turns to calls for candidates to be able to sit and pay for FLK1 and FLK2 separately, as well as the financial pressures facing those funding the qualification themselves.
You can listen to the podcast in full via the embed above, or on YouTube, Spotify or Apple Podcasts.
The Legal Cheek Podcast is proudly independent. Thanks to our sponsor Simpson Thacher, home of the private equity training contract, for making that possible
An extra six seconds per question in case anyone was wondering how much of an impact this reduction would have.
The math proves this is a significant adjustment, that extra six seconds adds 17 minutes of breathing room across the assessment. Plus, candidates now have the advantage of knowing the topic distribution for each half of the exam beforehand.
As someone who sat the SQE1 in July without these adjustments, I think the exam is fair if you commit to revision and studying. Making these changes in response to pressure feels like a cop-out. Legal practice is difficult and high-stress; you cannot ask a client or a partner to make a matter easier because you feel rushed. The exam should reflect the realities of the profession.
Other professions face difficult qualification filters, yet their regulators refuse to lower their criteria. For instance:
The CFA Institute maintains a Level 1 pass rate of around 40%, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants sees pass rates as low as 39% for its papers. The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries has pass rates of 28.6% for core modules (CM1 Sep 2025).
The reality of working in a law firm is that the job is incredibly demanding and high-pressure. Softening the gateway exam defeats the purpose of preparing future solicitors for real world legal work.
The fact they reduced the question count in response to complaints the exam was too difficult is direct proof the exam has been made easier. “Spoiler alert”. How cringe.
SQE1 Changes: Fewer Questions. But The Bigger Questions Remain
Many welcome the changes by the SRA to SQE 1 from January 2027 incl:
• Fewer questions: 170 per FLK assessment, down from 180 – 340 single-best-answer questions overall instead of 360.
• More time per question: 108 seconds instead of 102 on average. Each session remains 2 hours 33 minutes.
• Defined subject groups for each session: fewer subjects to focus on per session, although questions remain mixed within the session. Ethics continues throughout.
These are steps in the right direction.
But, significant questions remain for the SRA:
• Refunds & previous candidates: Will the SRA consider refunds or funded resits for candidates who failed under the previous format where time pressure affected their performance?
• Cost: Will fewer questions mean lower fees? Combined SQE1 and SQE2 assessment fees have risen to £5,092 from September 2026, before preparation courses and resits.
• Clarity: Will the SRA make the specification more precise and structured, clearly defining the breadth and depth of knowledge required? Currently the specification is unacceptably vague and incomplete.
• Resources: Will the SRA provide a definitive, regularly updated learning resource, giving every candidate an authoritative book? No such resource exists.
• Transparency: Will the SRA publish three years’ worth of retired past papers with explained answers, beyond the sample questions already available?
• Memory: Will the SRA review the sheer volume of law candidates must memorise, given that solicitors, incl day one solicitors, routinely consult authoritative sources in practice?
• Assessment: Has the SRA properly consulted candidates, as well as the profession on whether timed single-best-answer questions in the SQE 1 format establishes the knowledge and judgment expected of a day one solicitor?
• Relevance: Will the SRA re-examine whether obscure legal knowledge not found in practice should be included in the SQE1 assessment? A big issue.
• Flexibility: Will the SRA allow candidates to take FLK1 & FLK2 in separate assessment windows from the outset? Currently, they must ordinarily take (and paid) for both together, although someone who passes one can resit the other separately.
• Accountability: Will the SRA scrutinise the SQE assessment design rather than deflect and relying on descriptions such as “weaker than previous cohorts” to explain low pass rates?
• Access: How will the SRA ensure that candidates on low incomes, older candidates, those with caring responsibilities, people with disabilities and those working alongside their studies have a realistic opportunity to qualify?
We will see if these questions and more are properly addressed by the SRA.
The way forward is clear.
The SRA should retain the LPC for new entrants alongside the SQE, with rigorous standards for both. Isn’t that giving students a meaningful choice of how they qualify? And why has this choice been taken away by the SRA?
There are legitimate criticisms of the SQE, particularly around cost and accessibility, but quite a few of these points seem to confuse “the SRA has improved the assessment” with “the previous assessment was therefore unfair”.
Refunds / funded resits: Why? The fact that future candidates will answer 10 fewer questions per FLK does not retrospectively make previous sittings invalid. SQE1 does not operate with one fixed raw pass mark regardless of the paper. The pass mark is set to maintain a consistent standard across different assessments, with statistical equating used to account for differences in difficulty. If someone failed the previous format, the introduction of a slightly different format in 2027 does not establish that they would otherwise have passed.
Cost: This is a legitimate criticism. £5,092 for SQE1 and SQE2 before paying for preparation is an enormous amount of money and absolutely deserves scrutiny. But reducing SQE1 by 20 questions overall does not necessarily mean the cost of administering the assessment falls proportionately. The assessment still involves four 2 hour 33 minute sessions, test centres, question development, standard setting, marking, quality assurance and administration. Challenge the level of the fee, certainly, but “20 fewer questions therefore the fee should fall” is not much of an argument.
Clarity: Again, fair to ask for greater clarity, but saying the specification is “unacceptably vague and incomplete” is overstated. The SRA publishes detailed FLK specifications setting out what candidates are expected to know and reviews them annually. In fact, the 2026 review specifically added and amended wording in areas including business law, taxation and property practice to clarify the scope. Could it be clearer? Of course. That is very different from suggesting candidates are effectively being examined against an undefined syllabus.
Resources: Why should the regulator write the textbook? The SRA’s job is to specify the competence and knowledge required to qualify and administer the assessment, not become a legal education publisher. Universities and training providers teach the syllabus, and candidates can use textbooks, legislation and other legal resources. Creating an “official SRA book” would also create the rather obvious problem of keeping a single enormous publication continuously accurate across every SQE subject.
Past papers: More retired questions would certainly be useful, but the suggestion that candidates effectively have nothing is wrong. The SRA has already released 220 sample questions, including 130 questions previously used in actual SQE1 assessments. Those retired questions are specifically selected to be representative of the real assessment in difficulty and length. Wanting more is reasonable; presenting the existing resources as inadequate simply because three years of entire papers have not been released is another matter.
Memory: This criticism misunderstands what SQE1 is testing. Of course practising solicitors look things up. Nobody sensible expects a solicitor to memorise the entirety of English law. But SQE1 tests functioning legal knowledge: the fundamental legal rules and principles expected of a newly qualified solicitor. There has to be some body of law a solicitor actually knows. “I could Google it in practice” cannot be the qualifying standard for professional legal knowledge.
Assessment format: There is a reasonable debate to be had about whether single-best-answer questions are the ideal method of testing legal knowledge. But that is also why SQE1 is not the entire qualification. SQE2 separately tests practical legal skills including advocacy, interviewing, legal writing, drafting, research and case analysis. SQE1 tests knowledge and application; SQE2 tests whether candidates can actually perform core solicitor skills.
Relevance / obscure law: The SRA specification expressly says SQE1 is designed to test fundamental legal rules and principles at the level of a competent newly qualified solicitor and not specialist practice unlikely to be encountered at that level. If particular questions are genuinely outside that specification, identify them and challenge them. Simply remembering encountering a difficult or obscure question does not establish that the assessment is testing irrelevant law.
Taking FLK1 and FLK2 separately: This one effectively amounts to asking for SQE1 to become two separately purchasable examinations. There may be arguments for that, particularly financially, but there is also an obvious reason for requiring candidates initially to attempt the complete SQE1 assessment: FLK1 and FLK2 together constitute the knowledge assessment for qualification. The fact that somebody who passes one component does not have to repeat it is already a significant concession.
“Weaker cohorts”: If the SRA attributes changing pass rates to cohort performance, that should absolutely be supported by evidence. But low pass rates do not themselves prove defective assessment design. The whole point of a professional qualifying examination is that candidates who do not demonstrate the required standard fail it. A regulator manipulating the required standard simply to maintain a politically attractive pass rate would be considerably more concerning.
Access: Another legitimate concern. £5,092 in assessment fees, preparation costs and the time required to study create obvious barriers, particularly for candidates without employer sponsorship. That deserves serious attention. But accessibility and academic/professional standards are separate questions. The answer to financial barriers should be improving access to the assessment, not necessarily reducing what candidates must demonstrate to qualify.
And finally, bringing back the LPC does not follow from any of this.
One of the central purposes of the SQE was to introduce a common assessment so that everyone qualifying as a solicitor demonstrates the same standard, regardless of university or training provider. Running the LPC alongside it indefinitely would reintroduce two fundamentally different systems of qualification and undermine that objective.
There are plenty of things about the SQE worth criticising. The price is eye-watering, accessibility deserves much more attention, and greater transparency would be welcome.
But “the SRA listened to candidates and made the exam slightly less time-pressured, therefore previous candidates deserve refunds, candidates should be given an official textbook, the regulator should publish years of examination papers, solicitors shouldn’t have to memorise so much law and we should bring back the LPC” isn’t a particularly coherent conclusion.
Sometimes improving an exam just means improving an exam.