Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman slams ‘snowflake’ aspiring lawyers over SQE petition

Avatar photo

By Legal Cheek on

26

Student call to reform ‘disproportionately challenging’ exams draws criticism from MP


Barrister-turned-politician Suella Braverman has slammed aspiring lawyers who signed a petition calling for reforms to the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE), labelling them “snowflakes” who “didn’t do well, and it must be someone else’s fault”.

The former Home Secretary’s remarks follow a petition signed by over 750 students, first reported by Legal Cheek, which argues that the new exams are “not fit for purpose” and discriminate against candidates from diverse backgrounds and with different learning styles.

The petition, created by a trainee solicitor at an international law firm, describes the SQE as “disproportionately challenging” and says it has taken a severe toll on their mental, financial, and physical wellbeing.

The petition hasn’t gone down well with Braverman, who felt compelled to address it in a column for The Telegraph (£).

The SQE Hub: Your ultimate resource for all things SQE

“Britain’s legal profession — once a byword for rigour, intellect and integrity — now finds itself the latest battleground in the war against excellence,” Braverman writes in the newspaper. “A cohort of aspiring solicitors has taken to petitioning for the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) to be made easier. Their complaint? The exams are ‘too hard, disproportionately challenging’, and, of course, ‘biased towards certain backgrounds and learning styles’. In other words: ‘We didn’t do well, and it must be someone else’s fault.’”

Braverman says the “snowflake sensibility — once confined to undergraduate common rooms and the wilder fringes of social media — has now infected even the corridors of legal ambition”.

The MP, who studied law at Cambridge, goes on to recount her own challenges in qualifying as a barrister, including completing the “famously exacting New York bar,” which she describes as “not fun” and during which she lost a stone in weight amid “one set of particularly punishing exams”.

“They were not ‘inclusive’, she writes. “They were not designed to reflect my personal learning style. They were difficult. That was the point. And when I passed them, I felt a precious sense of achievement and readiness for the real world of legal practice.”

Braverman continues:

“If I’m paying a lawyer, a doctor, or a pilot for their services, I do not want someone who merely feels entitled to the role. I want someone who has earned their place. Their colour, class or creed do not matter to me. What matters, and should matter, is their calibre. And if that view now makes me unfashionable, then so be it.”

A spokesperson for the Solicitors Regulation Authority said: “We understand that candidates can find the SQE challenging, both to prepare for and sit. It is a demanding, high stakes assessment that gives successful candidates access to a licence to practise.”

They continued:

“The questions are written by a pool of solicitors reflecting what is expected of a newly qualified solicitor and the pass mark is determined using well-established methods. The SQE’s independent reviewer has confirmed it’s a robust and fair assessment. Many candidates have now passed the SQE. Pass rates and statistical information about candidates are published after each sitting. Differential outcomes by ethnicity are widely seen in legal professional exams, in other sectors and at different stages of education. Informed by research commissioned from the University of Exeter, we are taking action to address the causes of such differential outcomes that are within our influence.”

26 Comments

Anonymouse

Focusing on the difficulty of the SQE and its impact on the wellbeing of candidates was always misguided for this reason – not because it’s wrong, necessarily, but because it slots so easily into the narrative of lazy and feckless zoomers who get triggered by inclement weather.

A better strategy would be to emphasise the fact that the SQE is assessing for the wrong things. Lawyers are good at finding answers (or making do without them) rather than memorising and regurgitating them.

Easy Peasy Lemon SQEsy

And legitimate grievances surrounding the proper administration of the exams e.g. Kaplan wrongly failing candidates, computers breaking down at test centres, inadequate invigilation etc. etc.

Joy

So Ms Braverman is saying just because i found it difficult means it must be difficult for everyone else?

In this era of AI making work easier, it’s funny how the legal profession still expects one to pass through difficult exams to prove your worthiness to become a solicitor/barrister.

K Cassidy (AKA The Micheal Jordan of Legal Marketing)

You want the opposite, make it easy? Do you think people that succeed in life do so by making the path easier for them?

It doesn’t work like that unfortunately for those that wish it did.

Anon

Once again, a politician completely misses the point. Granted, there are people whining about the difficulty of the SQE. However, that isn’t the crux of the issue most people have with the SQE, and I’d be very surprised if Suella isn’t entirely aware of that.

Rather, it is the fact that the SRA has not achieved what it set out to with the SQE. Firstly, it isn’t cheaper than the LPC once you account for the preparation courses, which if you look at the pass rate statistics, are necessary to have a reasonable chance of passing.

Secondly, it also hasn’t increased minority/underrepresented group representation in the profession, with such groups also having a lower pass rate.

Thirdly, it also changed the competency level in marking from that of a new trainee to that of an NQ solicitor. This negates the purpose of the QWE, effectively leaving trainees in a position where they are suitably qualified to take on NQ work, but are only paid trainee salaries for such.

Fourthly, it has actually restricted access to the profession for those with certain medical conditions (e.g. those with neuro diverse or other mental conditions which affect one’s ability to memorise vast amounts of material).

Accordingly, it is safe to say that the SQE is an unmitigated failure (and this is before we get onto the woeful administration of the course by Kaplan). The SRA specifically set out to create a course which was cheaper than the LPC, increased access to the profession, was a fairer method of assessment, and increased public faith and confidence in the profession. Instead, they’ve created a course which discriminates against certain disabled candidates, tests in a manner which is wholly unrealistic to practice, is no cheaper than the course it replaces, has not increased public confidence in the profession, and has not increased disabled/BAME/LGBT or any other groups representation in the profession.

THIS is why people are complaining about the SQE. It simply does NOT work. What the SRA ought to have done is simply amend the LPC. They easily could have modified the syllabus or assessment method, or indeed centralised more of the examinations, and ended up with a far more suitable course, which assessed candidates in a broader array of methods which are better suited to people from different backgrounds and with various medical conditions.

For full disclosure, I say this as someone who has undertaken neither course, instead doing the BTC (Bar course). Suella must realise the BTC is nothing like the LPC/SQE and it is wholly inappropriate to use her experience on the Bar course as justification for shooting down those unhappy with the SQE. Frankly, if I were doing the SQE, I’d be thoroughly unhappy with what the SRA has done.

I also find it horrifying that Suella has seemingly suggested that because she managed the NY Bar exam, despite losing a stone from stress, that means others should put up with such too. The whole reason why many candidates end up so stressed in the first place is things like poor teaching, poor course administration, lack of resources etc. If you, or your sponsoring firm, are paying through the nose for the course, you absolutely deserve to have these things set right if they’re not as they ought to be, ESPECIALLY if such is causing candidates so much stress that they’re losing vast amounts of weight from it! There is a fine but very definite line between stress from a course being difficult and stress from a course being pi**-poor, and from what I’ve seen and heard, sadly the SQE falls squarely into the latter.

If Suella wishes to put her money where her mouth is, I would welcome her undertaking the SQE to prove just how easy it is.

War and Peace

@Copilot – please summarise the above comment.

realist

Probably in the wrong profession if you consider that so long it’s worthy of comment.

I suspect the average chancery judgment would send you into a coma.

Brevity

You’re in the wrong profession if you don’t understand that something that long is not persuasive

Trd

Not in the minds of the wokeists pushing the SQE. They have a problem with long complex sentences because they were alleged to be discriminatory against minorities. Not that solicitors have any need to understand complex English, of course.

Cambridge Grad

It is a little ironic that Suella, who herself scraped a third in her Cambridge Equity exams, feels competent to determine who is and is not deserving.

Lauren

Flop politician turns to bullying trainee solicitors in a desperate attempt to remain relevant. She outright lies in her column, including a purported direct quote from the petition that the exams are “too hard”. Assuming she’s referring to the Hannah Cox petition, the petition absolutely does not say anywhere “too hard”.

Here’s an idea: before we hear from any more C-listers, they have to sit and pass the SQE1 and SQE2.

Sqeasy

The petition says: “I have found the SQE disproportionately challenging”.

“Too hard” should have been paraphrased rather than quoted, but it’s not materially different to what the petition said.

Anon

Accuracy and integrity matter.

Agreed

New rule. This comment section is closed to anyone who didn’t sit SQE1, unless they are HR at a law firm and witnessing the disaster caused by it. Speaking of, HR are saying (per a previous article) that SQE graduates are worse than LPC grads at everything except dealing with slog. And despite what some people seem to think, lawyering is not all about slog.

Trd

Not lawyering, maybe, but it is 99% of being a junior solicitor.

To the petition writer:

Use this new publicity to add a petition update, explaining what ppl have said in the comments above. The issue is not the difficulty, but the myriad of other issues (especially the idea of memorisation of the uk legal system in 2025 lol)

Anon

Well… she’s right!! Probably wrong to target aspiring solicitors alone. They get this courage by their employing law firms and their Alma maters. Neither of them are happy about the SQE – because the SQE does not rubber stamp their hiring decisions.

Pegging a Slaughter and May trainee on the same scoring range as a paralegal from a High Street solicitor, to find the latter is actually better.. there were always going to be consequences!!!

Liz Truss

Braverman talks a great game for someone who once self-engineered a resignation from her job to cause issues for her boss through disregarding basic email rules and then floated back to the surface a couple of weeks later…

Foreign qualified associate in MC firm

One thing that nobody really talks about in the context of SQE is that it is quite challenging to pass if you’re working full-time job. Of course, a lot of candidates can study for SQE full-time but it should also be accessible for those who can’t.

Speaking as a foreign qualified associate in MC firm who’s done years of legal education abroad and is sitting the SQE2 now, it is still challenging to pass it.

Graduate solicitor apprentice

My issues with the SQE are as follows:
• The lack of transparency from Kaplan/SRA. Course providers know as much as students do. The NDA needs to be updated so it does not have an indefinite confidentiality period and past papers made available. I’ve never sat an exam without past papers.
• IT and general admin errors. These should be minimised and candidates having to wait months for another sit due to an IT issue is unacceptable.
• The SQE is welcome imo as it allows students to become qualified without a training contract. I became an apprentice through an in house paralegal position, this has allowed me to earn and not get into debt. The government is cutting funding for graduate apprenticeships from January 2026, so there goes that route.
• The cost of the courses are expensive. My course (including exams) is £18,000. I am not paying for this. The pass rate of people who do a course versus those who do not is substantial, so I have my doubts as to whether the SQE increases access to the legal sector.
• Having a closed book exam on legal principles is unrealistic. I get having a basic understanding of the law to advise, but if there’s a niche principle, I can simply research that in real life. The exam should be hard and testing as being a solicitor should be a respected profession, SQE1 just has no relevance to real life practice.
Overall, I would not listen to a politician who’s most well-known for a failed Rwanda policy which cost the UK hundreds of millions of pounds. A lot of the comments on Law Society Gazette come from a place of simply not understanding the SQE regime.

Riri

She is basically saying we should put up with it instead of asking for better and using her own experience to justify it – she should do better as a politician!

As someone who recently sat the SQE, the exam felt more like a penalty than an assessment – it can leave you questioning why you chose to pursue a career in law in the first place. The format, the way it’s assessed, and the calculation of the pass mark all come across as unnecessarily harsh. While the SQE was introduced with the stated goal of widening access to the legal profession, in reality, it seems to have had the opposite effect – narrowing it.

The assessment does not reflect the qualities or skills required to be a competent lawyer. It doesn’t test your understanding of the law in any meaningful way, and many of the questions feel deliberately misleading rather than designed to evaluate practical legal ability. They seem intended to catch candidates out, rather than assess their potential to succeed in practice.

It’s difficult to ignore the impression that the SQE was designed, at least in part, to reduce the number of qualifying solicitors in response to a saturated job market. If that is the aim, there must be a more constructive and fair way to address it. The extreme stress caused by this exam, particularly given its questionable relevance, is simply not justifiable.

Speaking personally, I felt my own SQE 1 exam went well, but even with a positive experience, it’s clear to me – and to many of my peers and colleagues – that this exam is not a genuine reflection of one’s knowledge or ability to become a good solicitor.

Finally, the SRA’s lack of transparency around the SQE process is deeply concerning. The use of NDAs, the refusal to release past papers, and the stark difference between sample questions and the actual exam all undermine trust in the system. For a profession built on the values of fairness, openness, and integrity, this level of opacity is shocking.

Scottish Student Perspective

couldn’t have put it better – as a Scottish student the SQE seems like an unnecessarily excruciating process!

SQE Survivor

I don’t value Suella’s opinion on the SQE as she’s (1) never taken the exams and (2) is a barrister, not a solicitor, so her experience is totally different. The SQE wasn’t academically hard, but mentally exhausting. Knowing the pass rate is around 50% messes with your confidence.

That said, if you can’t push through 1 to 2 years of intense study for the SQE, you probably won’t handle the demands of a long term legal career anyway.

Trd

Look around your cohort. 40% of them are never going to have a hope. So the pass rate ratio is not that bad.

Anon

Having completed both the LPC and the SQE 2, and passing both assessments on my first attempt. I can confirm that the SQE is challenging and even more so than the LPC.

Challenge, difficult, hard, or any other such synonyms are not dirty words. Some things are hard, and you have to do them to get what you want. Having said that, there are elements of the SQE that are unnecessary; such as the advocacy component. These nits should be addressed. You don’t want an assessment to be hard just for the sake of it.

The SQE gives candidates that were not lucky enough to secure a TC, an opportunity to qualify, so long as they are willing to face the challenge and work hard.

Ariel

Look who’s talking- Suella Braverman – yesterday’s (wo) man !

Join the conversation

Related Stories

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
29