PostsNews

Future trainee launches petition for reform of the SQE, citing mental and physical health concerns

Avatar photo

By Legal Cheek on

34

New training regime slammed by TC holder


An individual claiming to be a future trainee solicitor has launched a public campaign calling for reform of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE), citing the “severe toll” it has taken on her mental, financial and physical wellbeing.

Using the name ‘Hannah Cox’, which she’s since stated is an alias, the petitioner raises several key concerns, including what she describes as the “opaque nature” of SQE administration, particularly the SRA’s delay in publishing individual exam providers’ pass rates. This lack of transparency has, she argues, eroded trust among aspiring lawyers and is further compounded by reports of inaccurate exam results and an inadequate appeals process.

“The SQE is not fit for purpose,” states the petition, which has attracted over 260 signatures. It highlights concerns that elements of the exam may discriminate against candidates from diverse backgrounds and with different learning styles. This, she says, poses a threat to the diversity of the legal profession and risks excluding valuable perspectives that “enrich legal practice”.

The petition also addresses concerns about the SQE’s impact on students’ mental health. “The pressure and uncertainty surrounding the SQE is damaging, with many candidates enduring extreme stress and anxiety,” she writes. This mental toll is an “unacceptable consequence” of an exam meant to broaden access to the profession.

The future trainee continues:

“Despite being academically very strong, with a law degree from a top university and a training contract with an international firm, I have found the SQE disproportionately challenging. It has not only affected my academic life but has also taken a severe toll on my mental, financial, and physical well-being. This is a sentiment echoed by the vast majority of other candidates who have undertaken this exam.”

The SQE Hub: Your ultimate resource for all things SQE

“Future legal professionals deserve a fair and equitable path to qualification,” she continues, calling on the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to improve transparency and conduct a thorough review of the SQE’s content and structure. She argues that the exam should accurately assess a candidate’s capability without placing undue strain on their mental and physical health.

Since its introduction in 2021, the SQE has not delivered the smooth rollout the SRA had hoped for. Legal Cheek has previously reported a range of issues, including IT failures at test centres, long online queues to book exam slots, and what is arguably the most serious error to date — a calculation blunder that wrongly informed 175 students they had failed SQE1.

34 Comments

Anonymous

Based on the content in this article, you would have to question if “Hannah Cox” has the resilience and mental capability for a career in law. You would have to question why only 250 signed out of a cohort of many, why she is complaining, is it because she has been unsuccessful.

The SQE unlike the LPC is assessed by one provider not many. New systems take time to bed in, so issues are normal because of this.

Does she provide factual evidence to back up the petitions claims or is she using SRA SQE summary results to back her plea.

I do agree about the financial costs of doing prep or masters courses, and the exams themselves. There should be transparency of success rates by provider as promised.

Reply Report comment
(38)(95)

Anonymous

Sounds like you work for the SRA

Reply Report comment
(89)(3)

Anonymous

Not at all. Just a realist. Why would the final comment be made if that was the case. Guess you didn’t read just glanced before hitting comment.

Reply Report comment
(7)(34)

Factual evidence

Go to BPP and ask all the triple first cambridge / oxford graduates what they thought of SQE1. All the ones I asked said it was the hardest most stressful exam and preparation course they have ever done. And they’ve all done some of the most stressful top degrees in the world, and say this is much worse. Sincerely, one of the aforementioned BPP students

Reply Report comment
(70)(5)

False

not true, i’m in this position and the sqe was a breeze – best academic year since i left school

friends agree

Reply Report comment
(5)(28)

Trainee who has SQE

If you can’t handle the heat…. Get out of the kitchen.

Reply Report comment
(31)(73)

Factual evidence

Trainee at what firm? Guarantee 90% of MC people would not make a comment like that

Reply Report comment
(6)(23)

Passing the SQE doesn't mean you're the best lawyer

You sound like the type who will stay late night slogging in front of a computer screen on Chrismas Eve working on a matter “just for fun”. Get a grip on reality – just because you have passed doesn’t defeat the purpose of this petition.

The SQE is unrealistically hard and does not reflect real life practice at all. What lawyer has 1 minute and 42 seconds to calculate the capital gains tax liability of a company in the real world? Nobody – yet for sqe1, we are expected to answer the question in 1 minute and 42 seconds. What lawyer has 30 minutes to read through 5 attachments on a matter they have picked up from scratch then draft a letter to client? Nobody. Yet the SQE2 asks candidates to do so. Oh and before you come at me – I HAVE PASSED THE SQE TOO.

Reply Report comment
(38)(1)

Anonymous

You’re also clearly missing the point. The simple fact of the matter is that being a solicitor is not for the faint hearted. Lots of people pass the SQE, because they have the skills to work extremely hard under pressure with a good deal of mental agility. the SQE is about standardisation of the highest degree – because that reflects the rule of law and what the public can expect from solicitors. The SQE is designed to cast out those who just aren’t cut out. But also the SQE is just one measure for that – its toughness is nothing compared to private practice in which there are no qualms with chewing you up and spitting you out.

Reply Report comment
(3)(5)

Observer

I think the main issue with the SQE is that people are forced to focus on memorising an absurd amount of content to pass an incredibly difficult exam…

Whereas the emphasis should be on gaining a proper understand of the principles and how they apply in practice…

This might be why a number of firms are reporting that trainees who are arriving via the SQE path are struggling when compared to their LPC predecessors.

It suits candidates who can retain knowledge in a rigid question and answer format… but I do fear for those who exercise their intelligence in more creative and dynamic ways…

Reply Report comment
(63)(2)

Bad vibes

As a trainee who’s done the SQE, I now don’t remember any of it and I lack a lot of skills that were encouraged on the LPC. There’s no job that I wasn’t allowed to use the internet or any resources. The skills I honed for the SQE2 was limited due to the time limits/resources that just don’t help anyone..

I really struggle to see why it’s a good exam. Maybe the LPC was too easy, but just make it harder? Why introduce this beast?

Reply Report comment
(34)(1)

Factual evidence

Exactly this. Your are scared you will go bankrupt, your career in fumes, because you forgot which types of qualified covenants provide against delays and which not. There’s a billion things like that. This exam gets to you. For reference I got high too quintile and this is how it is. Lazy people are complaining, hard working people are complaining. Smart dumb short tall we are all shouting at the top of our lungs how stupid useless and awful this is.

Reply Report comment
(23)(6)

Defund the SRA

A better petition would be to disband the SRA entirely

Reply Report comment
(53)(0)

Top Quintile Trainee

Think this is obviously a nuanced issue. The SQE is undoubtedly harder than the LPC. However, it is not impossible. The legal profession is academically challenging and the entrance exam should reflect that fact. It is undeniably very difficult, but as is every legal exam in other jurisdictions which the UK competes with.

Reply Report comment
(32)(2)

Factual evidence

Solicitors should be better on average, 100%. Some seriously not bright people become solicitors. SQE does not address this. It is not filtering out bad legal minds, it is filtering out non-sponsored non-rich people and those who do not wish to give themselves an ulcer sitting a pointless test. Seriously does not test for legal acumen at all.

Reply Report comment
(17)(7)

Daisy2025

Scrap the SQE and keep the LPC. It was really pointless creating the SQE, just for the sake of it. Wasting students’ money. The course costs more than the LPC. If the SRA want to help students, they should reduce the training period to 18 months. This will encourage more firms to give training contracts.

Reply Report comment
(10)(9)

LPC for the win

From what I have heard the LPC certainly sounds more practical and relevant than SQE which appears to be a legal trivia quiz?

Reply Report comment
(20)(3)

Fairylawyer

Nah, the SQE is too much. I don’t need to memorise the difference between two similar legal terms word-for-word—no lawyer is expected to do that in practice. What matters is the ability to interpret the law and apply it professionally. SQE1 doesn’t test that. Multiple choice questions where the only difference between the answers is ‘substantial’ vs ‘significant’ don’t reflect the real skills a lawyer needs.

Reply Report comment
(28)(1)

Michael

A person who cannot cope with extreme stress should not enter the profession.

Reply Report comment
(11)(31)

Anonymous

I find it quite absurd to complain about an exam with a pass rate nearing 60% (!) – as was the case for the most recent SQE1 results in January 2025. The legal profession is intellectually and ethically demanding, and it is already surprising that such a generous pass rate is deemed acceptable by the SRA.

Consider France, where the bar exam pass rate is capped at around 30%. That is a system where one might reasonably expect frustration – yet you hear very little public outcry. And they’re French! If anyone were to take to the streets over an exam, it would be them.

It is, of course, always easier to blame the system than to confront personal shortcomings. If Hannah is ‘academically very strong, with a law degree from a top university and a training contract at an international firm,’ one might reasonably ask what those labels truly mean today. How selective are these “top” universities? How difficult is it to perform well academically in an inflated system? And what role did connections or privilege play in securing that coveted training contract – despite, it seems, landing in the bottom 40th percentile of the SQE1?

The uncomfortable truth is that law firms too often prioritise pedigree over merit. Until recruitment is based on resilience, critical thinking, and independent character – rather than school name or social ties – we will keep hearing complaints like these from those who were never asked to prove themselves beyond their CV.

Reply Report comment
(23)(10)

Anon

With you entirely. The SQE was devised after a lot of research and comparative analysis across jurisdictions. Law firms were involved in a multi-year consultation. Mostly they ganged up and resisted everything – hope they don’t defend their cases this way. Blaming the system – on the basis that the old school approach found you good enough, but an exam finds you not, is a weak argument. If anything, the SQE is probably a far better predictor of someone’s legal acumen compared to some of the other tests / interview / selection processes employed across firms in selecting their trainees. Its critics fail to address the fact that you can pass the exam getting a little more than 50% of the MCQs right – any lower bar would be shameful. If anything, firms are being a little silly in backing trainees as future lawyers, without any guarantee that they cut the mustard to pass the SQE. Perhaps the best assessment centre for lawyers, but its disappointing that the self-declared best trainees in the best firms complain only about passing, when there are people out there with consistent top quintiles.

Reply Report comment
(3)(11)

Hm!

I’d say this is dramatic but I had a look at pictures of me during the SQE and yikes. It’s honestly not just the exam but the mental anguish of it. No multiple choice exam should determine your entire future especially in such poor economic times.

Reply Report comment
(24)(0)

Anonymous

As someone who recently sat the SQE, it’s not about ‘the mental toughness’ or ‘if you can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen’. It’s such a flawed exam – having to memorise thousands of pages of dense content – including tax rates, form numbers and across 10+ different subjects – isn’t a good test of whether you understand the content. If you haven’t sat it, you have no idea how horrible this exam truly is.

Reply Report comment
(22)(0)

SQE1 sitter

Unlike many others throwing in their two pence here, I sat this exam.

Despite passing sqe1, I cannot emphasise enough how unfit for purpose this exam is. Pure memorisation, across like 15 different areas of law (including accountancy for some weird reason as if that isn’t an entirely different career) in 2025 is ridiculous.

My cohort (magic circle) all agreed it was the worst few months of our academic lives. Many of us graduated from the best universities in the UK amongst the top of our cohort, and some were still unable to pass – that is the level of difficulty at play here.

In terms of the personal impact, the sheer pressure of potentially losing a life-changing TC, combined with the complete misery and dedication to 17/18 hour days for months on end required to pass, is debilitating. Most people I know ended up being prescribed medication of some kind, and many younger people we know have turned away from law altogether.

Absolutely woeful exam. Change needs to happen, but I fear too much money is being made through re-sits and the low pass rate for it to be considered.

Reply Report comment
(37)(2)

Gronx

I just took the SQE and agree on most points – but nobody needs to do 17/18 hour days on months for this.

Reply Report comment
(3)(4)

Anon

I too sat the exam, but don’t think the same. Not having the blessing of a sponsoring law firm, I saw it as a way to prove my worth. Regrettably passing as an NQ having done very well in the SQE, I faced closed doors, because most firms already had placed bets on their trainees to be their future lawyers. Much of your criticism feels personal. You don’t need to memorise everything to do well in the exam. The more learned you are – more easily you can narrow down the options – and focus on the really thorny options amongst the 5. The pass mark is around 50% – which means there is more than enough room to get questions wrong and still pass.. If anything, I am surprised that MC trainees aim for just passing the exam – the pass mark is set at the level of a ‘just competent’ newly qualified solicitor.

Reply Report comment
(2)(7)

Lawlylawyer

As someone who has a TC with an international firm and passed SQE1, these exams are just ridiculous. It is one thing to create an exam which is difficult – that is fine and the law profession does need it. It is another thing to create a monster that tests incredibly niche (and in some cases absurd) areas of law, have “practice questions” that are nowhere near reflective of the actual thing and charge extortionate amounts of money for a single sitting. I understand that the exam is meant to be difficult but at times it genuinely felt like an uphill battle with no end in sight.

Reply Report comment
(10)(0)

Horrible

It’s unbelievably obvious the SQE was introduced just so the SRA can get a cut of the lucrative graduate training market. It’s already so dysfunctional for the main ‘providers’ to be owned by private equity companies. I wouldn’t be surprised if the shareholders of the providers and the SRA had conflicts of interests. The whole system needs to be reformed from bottom up.

Reply Report comment
(11)(1)

Anonymous

For those who haven’t sat the SQE1 or SQE2, please go prepare for the exams and actually sit them. The amount of information one has to commit to memory is monumental. 2,000 flashcards easily. Thousands of pages. Countless hours. Sacrifice. Regardless of what happens with the SQE, I dare you to applaud anyone who has passed this exam.

It is not easy. I’m not saying it should be. But SQE passers deserve respect.

Reply Report comment
(12)(0)

First- time SQE passer, 1st class degree

I passed in the top quintile for both SQE1 and SQE2 and am now a trainee at a top international firm. I didn’t study for 17 hours a day and I had a full-time job alongside. Although I was sponsored, there was a huge pressure to pass first time or risk losing the TC. For me the issue was not that it was a difficult exam, but that the consequences for failing were enormous! If you weren’t sponsored, you were risking a lot of money. The courses are not always fit for purpose, and whilst the exam-style suited me, I do not think it offers a fair reflection of everybody’s potential as a lawyer. Not to mention that the areas tested aren’t even relevant to a lot of people’s career trajectories.

I am gobsmacked that other people who have passed well don’t have the intelligence or empathy to see that this exam doesn’t work. I had IT issues and was in the cohort where people were told they had failed when they hadn’t. I remember my biggest fear going into SQE2 was not if I was capable of passing, but whether I would be lucky enough to get through the whole thing without the SRA making a mistake that meant I’d fail. That is the mark of a terribly run exam.

Also, I got a first class from Oxbridge and this was undoubtedly the worst set of exams I have ever taken. I would rather retake my A Levels than go through that hell again.

Reply Report comment
(23)(1)

SQE survivor / MC trainee

The SQE was no fun but it wasn’t especially difficult. Every able person I know walked through without trouble, assuming a reasonable baseline of work. Those who worked hard passed with flying colours – near the top of the first quintile in both papers. And even appallingly lazy people like me passed on the first attempt.

I was in one of the earliest SQE cohorts and it was a stressful time mainly because our course provider knew nothing about the exams so couldn’t give us reassurance we were on the right track. However, if you have graduated with a strong degree from a good university, it shouldn’t be especially challenging (although it will be time consuming and boring). Of course not everyone in the legal profession is in that group, but the narrative is there are reams of exceptionally talented technical lawyers finding the SQE impossible, which isn’t true.

I have no doubt the reforms are terrible. The SQE is a huge waste of time, forcing us to cram books of information that will be immediately forgotten and never encountered in practice, all while missing out on the skills taught by the LPC and enriching the inept SRA. The longer I have spent in law, the notion that an NQ solicitor will know the SQE syllabus becomes ever more risible.

Reply Report comment
(2)(5)

SQE Survivor

I have a first-class law degree from a top university and a TC with an international firm. The SQE wasn’t academically difficult, but mentally draining – constantly knowing the pass rate hovers around 50% makes you second guess yourself. It’s intense in the moment, but you’ve just got to power through. If you can’t handle the mental strain of the SQE, you won’t cope with a career in corporate law.

Reply Report comment
(8)(0)

Barrister

Can only comment based on what I have read here and elsewhere. But it seems absolutely crackers that this is the system that has replaced GDL+LPC for people who want to become solicitors but did not study law at undergrad. At least law grads who are forced down the SQE route will have spent some time doing proper written legal problem questions and essays etc.

Reply Report comment
(2)(1)

S Taylor

The core issue is an oversupply of aspiring lawyers, and it’s hard to reduce the numbers. Legal education needs reform—perhaps by setting higher academic standards for law students. While this may seem harsh, it protects those unlikely to succeed from unnecessary financial debt and avoids the current fudge of making the SQE excessively difficult.

Reply Report comment
(2)(0)

Join the conversation

Related Stories

news SQE Hub

‘Working full-time, no prep course — and I passed SQE1’

Trainee solicitor Matthew Smith explains how

6 days ago
4
news SQE Hub

Regulator unveils changes to SQE appeals and complaints process

Aims to improve fairness, says SRA

Jul 8 2025 7:40am
9
news SQE Hub

‘My 10 point plan for SQE reform’

Thom Brooks, professor of law and government at Durham University, puts forward his recommendations for overhauling the SQE

Jun 30 2025 7:33am
28