Why is it so expensive to qualify?
The Solicitors Qualifying Examination is the assessment all prospective solicitors in England and Wales must pass to qualify. It replaced the Legal Practice Course.
A major justification for the SQE was that it would make the profession more accessible. As part of this, it was implied that the cost of qualifying under the SQE would be more affordable than the LPC. Yet many critics argue (in my view justifiably) that the SQE is falling short of this objective.
Assuming an SQE candidate sits SQE1 (£1,798) and SQE2 (£2,766), it will cost £4,564. Meanwhile, a prospective lawyer in New York who wants to sit the New York Bar Exam will spend $250 (£196) if they have graduated with a law degree authorised by the American Bar Association, or $750 (£588) if they are a law graduate of a foreign university.
The difference here is stark. The cost of exams in England and Wales is many times more expensive than in New York. Obviously, New York is a different jurisdiction with different aims and objectives to England and Wales; but given the comparison, it makes one wonder why such a large discrepancy exists.
The cost of the SQE is not a money-making exercise by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. In fact, the regulator only gets 1-2% of all examination fees received. The SRA retains £30 from each exam fee (£60 if a candidate sits both SQE1 and SQE2) to cover its own internal costs. The remainder, in its entirety, goes to exam provider Kaplan. Although Kaplan receives around 98% of the fees, the SRA is ultimately responsible for the cost of the exam because it is the SRA board which sets the SQE fees annually. Moreover, Kaplan is merely being paid to carry out the exams on the SRA’s behalf.
Kaplan and the SRA may argue that the high fees to sit the SQE are required to deliver and administer the assessment to a sufficient standard. However, the question should be asked: why does it cost so much more to qualify in England and Wales than it does to qualify in New York? Especially when the SQE’s administration has been beset by several high-profile errors and issues, including those pertaining to booking and marking exams, the IT provided for candidates to take their exams, and invigilation.
Prospective solicitors deserve an explanation.
Drew Reed
Recently qualified solicitor, Cambridge
Dealing with claimants who string out litigation
I agree with much of what Colin Jaque wrote about the post-CPR court management of cases (Gazette, 12 July 2024).
I agree that most lawyers are ‘adept at controlling the conduct of disputes themselves’, and allowing them to do so may free up much judicial and court administrative time and resources.
However, those availing themselves of the opportunity to act in person may need assertive guidance from time to time by the court using some form of court management.
Another advantage of pre-CPR procedures that has been lost is the emphasis upon claimants having to prosecute their claims with due expedition. As such, it seems that the courts currently have insufficient powers under the CPR to deal with claimants who string out litigation unreasonably. Addressing this may also improve court efficiency and assist in providing timely justice for all parties.
Angelo Micciche
Solicitor, Hine Downing Solicitors, Falmouth
No scope for tinkering
In his 5 July Gazette article, ‘No need to tinker with asset division’, Tim Bishop KC dealt with the case of Standish v Standish. He said that such cases demonstrate why there is no need for the Law Commission to tinker with asset division on divorce.
In fact, the commission is not about to act in this way. Rather, its work on this project is merely with the aim of publishing a scoping paper in November.
In 2014, the Law Commission produced a report, Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements. I was lucky enough to sit on the advisory group for that project. That report looked at marital property agreements and other specific aspects of the financial consequences of divorce and dissolution. As part of the current review, the commission will scope whether the issues covered in the Matrimonial Property project need to be reviewed beyond the 2014 recommendations.
Tony Roe
Partner and family arbitrator, Dexter Montague, Reading
No comments yet