To SQE or not to SQE, that is still the question

On 5 June, the Solicitors Regulation Authority approved its final design for the Solicitors Qualifying Examination. But is it for the best, and does it meet the objectives that were set all those years ago? 

There are four elements to the assessment:

1. SQE 1, testing legal knowledge through a series of multiple choice questions;

2. SQE 2, testing application of legal knowledge and skills through a series of written and oral exercises;

3. two years’ full-time (or equivalent) qualifying work experience; and

4. the character and suitability test.

How a candidate goes about getting educational and practical training to succeed in three of those elements is completely up to the candidate. However, the law degree or GDL is no longer considered a necessary requirement – by the SRA at least – of becoming a solicitor.

At the end of July, the SRA is expected to make its application to the Legal Services Board (LSB) for approval of the SQE in its entirety. There remain, however, many concerns within the legal profession. For that reason, the Junior Lawyers Division is officially calling for a delay to the timeline for SQE implementation in order for the SRA to better address these concerns, before the LSB considers the SQE any further.

From the JLD’s perspective, these concerns mostly relate to quality, and the potentially negative impact the SQE could have on equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI).

So what could the SRA do to help alleviate such concerns? We suggest the following:

• Maintain the law degree or equivalent as a necessary requirement to qualify as a solicitor – this would address concerns in relation to the quality of the SQE and that multiple-choice questions alone should not be used to test a candidate’s functioning legal knowledge. It should also help improve the view of the SQE from international jurisdictions, upholding England and Wales as a jurisdiction of choice.
• Delay the SQE until the SRA has concluded its research and committed to incorporate recommendations to address the current differential performance by binary ethnicity that has become apparent from the two pilots. In both pilots, results showed that there was cause for concern regarding black, Asian or minority ethnic (BAME) candidates not performing as well as white candidates.
• The JLD understands work is ongoing at the SRA to consider this further and ensure a system that is fair for all. It is important that this work is concluded before the design of the SQE is finalised and approved.
• Run pilots of the final design of the exams. While the SRA has conducted two pilots, neither was an actual test of what is proposed to be the final design of each exam. This means that the first live sittings of SQE 1 and 2 will effectively be the first time each is tested. And candidates will be paying for the privilege (by as much as £4,500, not including the costs of the educational courses which are likely to be required).  
• Mandate some form of order – the JLD would like to see SQE 2 being a final test of a candidate’s ability before admission as a solicitor. At present, candidates could sit SQE 1 and 2 before their two years of qualifying work experience; despite this, passing SQE 2 acknowledges that the candidate is performing the skills at the level of a newly qualified competent solicitor. The JLD is concerned that courses will be developed (further increasing the costs for prospective solicitors) to teach candidates how to pass SQE 2 when these skills should actually be learnt on the job; with SQE 2 being a final check of competence before qualification.
• A commitment to input all recommendations which come out of the Bridge Group’s updated report on the impact SQE could have on equality, diversity and inclusion in the profession. The first report acknowledged that the SQE had the potential to improve EDI, but only if the SRA put certain measures in place. The initial report is now being updated and a final report is expected this month.

There are those who would argue that it is time to accept the SQE for what it is and move on. But we at the JLD do not consider it to be in the interests of junior lawyers to stay quiet.

The division has always supported the concept of a centralised assessment, so that there is not such a huge disparity between LPC results and which university an individual attended, and also to help eliminate uncertainties over the quality of training of trainees.

The current system is by no means perfect and the JLD accepts that the SQE in its current form is better in part. But this should not be about making the system a little better. The SQE is the process by which someone can become a solicitor of England and Wales – a title that should carry esteem, a sense of pride and achievement. Why should we therefore settle for only ‘a little better’? If the SRA wants to overhaul the system, it needs to get it right.

For now at least, the JLD will continue to voice concerns to ensure that the LSB really hears the voice of the profession – those who have obtained the title of solicitor already and those who aspire to do so.

Charlotte Parkinson, chair of the Junior Lawyers Division, is an associate at Addleshaw Goddard