From 2025

The College of Legal Practice (CoLP) has partnered with South West law firm Ashfords to support its trainee lawyers in preparing for the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE).

The law school, which delivers its SQE prep by way of virtual training, will also provide trainees with skills and foundation law modules.

The Legal Cheek Firms Most List shows Ashfords recruits around 13 trainees each year across offices in Bristol, Exeter and Plymouth. It also has a hub in London.

The pair have already been working closely together over recent weeks, with CoLP delivering presentations to Ashfords’ summer vacation scheme students.

Dr Giles Proctor, CEO of CoLP, said:

“We are delighted to be partnering with Ashfords, who are looking at their training holistically and are focusing on giving their future lawyers the best possible start to their legal careers. We are enjoying the close partnership that we have already developed which highlights team’s clear focus on supporting their trainees through these challenging exams.”

Toby Tompkins, talent attraction manager at Ashfords, added: “We are looking forward to collaborating with The College of Legal Practice in order to provide our trainees with the very best preparation for their SQE exams. From our conversations with Giles and the team, we have been impressed with the level of personalised support and training offered to students, which will undoubtedly ensure each of our future lawyers have the best chance of succeeding in their exams and beyond.”

CoLP already has number of similar tie-ups in place with both national and international law firms. The law school already offers transactional training to trainees at the London office of Reed Smith and provides SQE preparation for firms such as Acuity Law, Wright Hassall, Clarke Willmott and PwC Legal Middle East.

The law school also has a number of arrangements with academic institutions to provide SQE training within LLM courses. These include Manchester Metropolitan University, Middlesex University, and, as of February this year, Keele University.

Nearly half cite lack of info for not switching

Just over a quarter of small and medium (SME) law firms are yet to take up the Solicitor Qualifying Exam (SQE) as a route to qualification, new research has shown.

Of the 27% who haven’t yet adopted the pathway, nearly half (44%) cited a lack of information for not making the switch. A quarter additionally reported a lack of “buy-in” internally as a barrier, with 6% concerned about the cost.

With the transition windows from the Legal Practice Course to SQE running officially until 2032, nearly a third of firms (31%) said that now was simply not the right time to make the transition across to the new scheme. “However”, the report states, “the reality is that the LPC window of opportunity is closing quickly with a real shift expected over the next couple of years”.

The research, undertaken by legal education provider BARBRI, also noted that 53% of SME firms have taken on apprentices, with the majority doing so to bring in new talent and up skill existing lawyers, and a smaller number only looking to achieve one of those objectives.

Of the 46% of firms not to take up the pathway, 36% said that they “prefer more traditional routes”, with 28% concerned about the time required for recruits to acquire skills, and 16% worried about the quality of candidates on offer.

The report surveyed 127 figures across SME law firms, 84 of whom were senior decision makers, with the other 43 paralegals or people in similar roles.

SME law firms were defined as those with less than 250 employees and an annual turnover under £50 million.

City Law School’s James Catchpole questions exclusion of SQE students in long-awaited research

A senior figure at one of the country’s largest law schools has criticised a recent report on performance disparities among ethnic groups in law exams, arguing that its failure to consider the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) means an “enormous opportunity has been missed”.

Speaking to Legal Cheek, James Catchpole, The City Law School’s associate dean for postgraduate and professional degree programmes, said the long-awaited report had “great potential to be insightful and educate the profession on how students from ethnic minority backgrounds perform in assessments and ultimately progress into the profession.” Instead, “it appears that an enormous opportunity has been missed by it focusing on the LPC, a route that will be coming to an end, and failing to look at the appropriateness of the SQE as a method of entry or means of addressing the ‘awarding gap’”.

The research, commissioned by the regulator in December 2021 and undertaken by academics at the University of Exeter, found that differences in performance among candidates from certain ethnic groups were due to a combination of social, economic, and educational factors, rather than any single reason.

The study involved 1,200 law students, including 700 from university law degrees last year and 510 from the LPC, and conducted more than 50 in-depth interviews with students, newly qualified solicitors, law lecturers, and senior managers in law firms.

Researchers did not interview current or past SQE students because, according to the regulator, the pathway is still relatively new and lacks sufficient numbers or specific experiences to include in the report. It’s worth noting, however, that the SRA has a separate ongoing review programme of the SQE that will address issues related to equality, diversity, and inclusion, among other things.

“Whilst the SQE is only one of the components to entry, it is nonetheless the culmination of a student’s study,” Catchpole continued. “So will it help them or, as some have said, disadvantage them further? The report fails to give any insight into how any student can be supported to succeed in this new assessment.”

The report highlighted that minority ethnic students face increased discrimination and bias in educational settings, limited access to work experience opportunities, and a lack of ethnic diversity among academic staff and teaching examples. Researchers noted that this environment affects students’ sense of belonging and perception of fitting into the profession, leading to microaggressions and bias from academic staff, which ultimately impacts their learning experience.

As in previous years, the SRA’s latest education and training report showed that students from ethnic groups were less likely to successfully complete the LPC, a trend that has continued with the introduction of the SQE.

In response to the findings, the SRA has committed to bringing together education providers, law firms, and the wider legal sector to work together to address the issues identified in the report. It said it will also develop an action plan informed directly by the findings.

Continuing, Catchpole noted that the report provides evidence supporting what many have long believed about the challenges faced by aspiring minority ethnic lawyers, describing this as a “positive development”. It also gives “the profession cause to look inwardly at its recruitment and entry requirements; let’s hope that employers do genuinely give those with potential the opportunity to demonstrate that they are valuable assets to the profession”.

A spokesperson for the SRA told Legal Cheek:

“There is a widely acknowledged and long-standing difference in outcomes by ethnicity within professional legal assessments. Through this research we wanted to better understand the complexity and breadth of the underlying causes of these differences, and bring together stakeholders from across the sector to consider how we might address these.”

They continued: “The trends we are seeing in SQE results mirror those which existed for years among LPC candidates, whose experiences this research analysed. As we take forward the findings and recommendations from this research, we will increasingly consider the insights we can gain from the rich data we are gathering on SQE candidates and their performance.”

Amid marking howlers and failure to deliver on transparency pledges, the profession is losing confidence in the new Solicitors Qualifying Exam. It all boils down to lack of leadership, says legal education godfather Professor Nigel Savage. Will anyone step up?

Now that the dust has settled on the SQE exam results fiasco, it’s a good time to reflect. We’ve all made mistakes; the test is how you handle them with swift comms and appropriate sensitivity.

Judging by the student response across social media and websites like Legal Cheek, I’m not sure that happened. I know anecdotally from my own network that there are serious issues in the administration of the SQE.

However, that shouldn’t detract from the strategy. I supported the reform and its already delivering on some of the objectives. The concept of qualifying work experience instead of the training contract has removed a huge bottle neck, particularly for paralegals and the apprenticeship market will eventually restore the old five-year route of qualifying entirely from within the workplace.

Undergraduate law schools cannot ignore the SQE and do so at their peril. They will be judged on their outputs and cannot lay all the blame on the new prep providers. Meanwhile, there is greater competitive pressure from new providers, some of whom have brought substantial investment into the market from overseas.

So where has SQE creator the Solicitor Regulation Authority (SRA) fallen short? The strategy was right, but they have failed to deliver on tactics. To borrow a quote from warfare: “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory”, which is presumably why the SRA are saying there will be no changes for ten years. I attended some of the early meetings where we were assured that the SRA would publish league tables on where candidates completed their law degrees and prep courses. Indeed, it was a requirement raised in the Legal Services Board (LSB) approval when they stated: “it is essential that the SRA delivers on its commitments to monitoring and evaluation including making all reports, data and assessment of these for public consumption”.

There doesn’t seem to be any immediate prospect of publication, the excuse being that such data is not available. Surely if the application form to register for the SQE required students to provide that information it would already be available. Given the SRA’s wider responsibility in terms of consumer protection (not to mention the LSB) it is surely in the public interest for all students, parents and employers to have access to this data given the level of investment they are making in the profession.

It has always been argued that the data requirement shouldn’t extend to undergraduate schools because they are regulated by other bodies, but those regulators won’t have access to such data and are not likely to ask for it unless the SRA supply it. The American Bar Association publishes annually a comprehensive set of data for all accredited law schools on success rates in the State Bar exams as a form of consumer protection — and they have 198 schools and 117,000 students to manage!

I think there is a marked lack of interest, leadership and ownership in the sector from the LSB, the Law Society and the SRA, especially in representing the interests of the student consumers making their way through the system. I think some of the tactical issues are falling between the gaps as between regulation and membership — and amid the posturing much of what the Law Society used to engage in to support the framework has been forgotten.

LawCAB provides real support for student applicants and does some gathering of data, plus there are some excellent pockets of tactical leadership such as the recent initiatives emanating from the City of London Law Society. The danger is that such leadership is fragmented and leads to duplication of scarce resources. I saw this happen many years when the pro-bono movement gathered speed, lots of very worthy projects but not co-ordinated which resulted huge duplication of resources eventually mitigated by the appointment of a Pro-bono Tsar.

Universities are facing the perfect storm, with law schools — even research-led ones — facing huge challenges which put at risk their very existence and work in key areas such as justice, diversity and overseas links. Such law schools are now located in ‘Super Faculties’ where they compete for resources with other disciplines who may be supported by external organisations which are more vociferous and proactive than their legal counterparts. I well remember when the Legal Practice Course (LPC) was first introduced, and the Law Society appointed the fearsome Paulene Collins to manage validation visits and rate providers on a scale of excellent to unsatisfactory. If the provider was not providing sufficient resource, or falling short on key issues such as diversity, they would be highlighted in the report. That provided a framework to address changing patterns in the legal services market and highlight real innovation . That no longer exists and the market has to be informed on the basis of social media and marketing puff.

In the area of apprenticeships some vice chancellors are reluctant to support them because they are regulated and monitored by OFSTED and inspectors may not have sufficient expertise in some degree level fields. Surely the SRA and Law Society could train individuals with specialist expertise to join such panels and work with OFSTED to encourage more universities to embrace the route?

There has been much innovation across the sector, particularly the SME sector, but I have been surprised by how much of the old training contract regime has been retained in the City firms. I thought that the SQE would provoke some radical changes not least driven by the Richard Susskind future of law agenda ,with a reduction in the numbers but much greater investment in professional development, taking recruits to a higher level quicker. Instead, the firms are engaging in a remuneration battle which is just driving up their cost base.

I guess my main point is that there doesn’t seem be any ‘ownership’ of legal education in its broadest sense. If the findings of the recent University of Exeter Report are to be implemented regulators are going to have to be more interventionist. There must be a clear role for the Law Society in coordinating the tactical issues for aspirant solicitors, but they are hidebound by the fact that they cannot admit students — or anyone else — into membership. I also feel that much more could be done to make the new qualification more accessible to students overseas by setting up test centres in key jurisdictions. Global legal services are an important sector for the UK economy and encouraging lawyers overseas to acquire the professional status without the need to travel would add value to sustaining the pre-eminence of English law globally.

Professor Nigel Savage previously ran three law schools under three different solicitor qualifying regimes. He led Nottingham Law School through the switch from Law Society Finals to the LPC, was then the CEO of The University of Law and finally headed up The College of Legal Practice as it launched to deliver the SQE. He no longer has any law school affiliations.

Lack of understanding among employers

Research shows that some aspiring lawyers are struggling in securing approval for their qualifying work experience (QWE), as training organisations either lack understanding of the new system or opt to keep candidates as paralegals rather than qualified solicitors with higher salaries.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) annual QWE survey found that 17% of students described the sign-off process as “difficult” or “very difficult”, marking a 4% point increase from the previous year.

The three main reasons given by candidates who found the process of getting their QWE confirmed difficult were: the QWE provider did not understand the requirements they needed to meet to confirm QWE; the provider did not want to confirm their QWE because they did not want to employ them as a solicitor (rather than, for example, as a paralegal); and they had completed QWE in a previous role, making it hard to get in touch with the relevant organisation or individual.

Introduced alongside the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE), the changes to on-the-job experience allow aspiring lawyers to bypass the traditional training contract process. They can now complete two years of qualifying work experience (QWE) with up to four different employers, including law firms, in-house legal teams, and law clinics.

QWE must be signed off in accordance with the SRA’s requirements, typically by the compliance officer for legal practice (COLP) or a qualified solicitor within the firm, business or clinic.

In more positive news, the regulator found that nearly three-quarters of respondents considered the process of getting their QWE confirmed “easy” or “very easy,” marking a 7% point increase from last year’s findings.

Elsewhere, 41% of students said it was “easy” or “very easy” to secure QWE, up 10 percentage points from last year’s survey. However, just over 20% said it was “difficult” or “very difficult,” with common reasons being high levels of competition, lack of knowledge about QWE among firms and businesses, and struggles finding QWE in their local area.

Regarding where candidates are completing their QWE, more than 80% said they did so in law firms, and nearly two-thirds did so in other private sector organisations. Nearly half undertook elements of their QWE in public sector organisations, while 28% completed some QWE in a student law clinic.

The SRA’s survey received 280 responses.

Law student Dara Antova gives her verdict on the Kaplan marking debacle

It’s officially been over a month since the most recent episode of “Law and Disorder” aired. Candidates are still reeling from it, and the consequences are definitely evident.

One hundred and seventy-five out of 6,626 candidates were mistakenly told they had failed the first set of Solicitors Qualifying Exams (SQE1). What is even more troubling is how this mistake was uncovered. It wasn’t through Kaplan’s internal efficiency checks or through detailed analysis before announcing the results. Instead, the error was only discovered because the affected students appealed their results. This revelation has sparked a debate about the quality of the current examination system and whether enough safeguards are in place to prevent such oversights and protect future lawyers.

While it is appreciated by many that Solicitors Regulation Authority’s chief executive, Paul Philip, has expressed his disappointment and acknowledged the seriousness of this mistake, it doesn’t change the fact that for some students, it resulted in their training contract (TC) offers being revoked.

After working diligently in an already highly competitive industry, where the demand for working as a lawyer often exceeds available positions, this setback is particularly disheartening. Not to mention the additional slap in the face of the goodwill payment of £250, which seems inadequate and does little to address the significant impact on the candidates; no amount of money can adequately address the situation, especially considering that covers just a fraction over one-eighth of the total fees required to complete SQE1.

The City of London Law Society’s training committee shed light on a sobering reality, saying: “Some have chosen to abandon their prospective legal career“. This statement resonates deeply, as many aspiring lawyers are witnessing first-hand the actions of firms that have swiftly rescinded TC offers. The allure of the TC’s glossy packaging, perks, and pay-packet no longer masks the stark truth: firms have revealed their priorities, and the well-being of their employees didn’t make the cut. I get it; it’s a grim truth that no aspiring lawyer wants to face, and it’s definitely causing many to reconsider this lauded career path.

With fees set to rise in September even with the marking blunder, can we really have much faith in the SQE administrators? As unpleasant as the situation is, we must remember, in the interest of balance, that this exam is relatively new, and it’s normal to encounter challenges initially. However, given the expectations placed on future lawyers to be trustworthy and reliable, it’s only fair to expect the same level of commitment from those administering the exams.

Just imagine the frustration of pouring your heart and soul into an exam only to be told you didn’t make the cut, only to later discover it was an error. By then, it may be too late to sign up for SQE2, leaving you unable to qualify that year. As a result, you might find yourself grappling with the overwhelming sense of loss and disappointment. Does that sound dramatic to you?

How can this ever be rectified? Candidates are now left to navigate this ordeal, and I fear the true extent of the consequences may never be fully known. So many have been deterred from pursuing their dreams, and the impact of this debacle is far-reaching.

As a future lawyer, I found myself heartbroken over the news, imagining I was in the shoes of those candidates. Witnessing the fallout and reading about the consequences on the internet, with future lawyers expressing their lack of mental strength, willpower, and energy to continue, made me question my own career path—as did many others. And for those who have been completely deterred from pursuing a career as a solicitor, I don’t blame you!

Speaking at the time, Kaplan’s director of qualifications, Zoe Robinson, said: “We are committed to putting this right for candidates, and sincerely regret and apologise for the impact this has had for those affected.” In addition to the goodwill payment, Robinson acknowledged that students who received incorrect results might have suffered direct losses and encouraged those affected to come forward.

At the end of the day, some incredible would-be lawyers may have been lost to the profession due to this blunder. The best we can hope for now is to ensure something like this never happens again. I appreciate that Kaplan is working on it, however, it doesn’t make the current situation any easier to bear.

From my perspective, the SQE seemed like a promising concept in theory. However, its implementation has fallen significantly short of its intended purpose. Despite aiming for inclusivity and accessibility, it has achieved the opposite effect. This discrepancy between theory and reality raises significant concerns about the effectiveness and fairness of the SQE examination system. The disparity between the lofty goals set forth by the SQE and the harsh realities faced by candidates highlights a fundamental flaw in the system. It’s imperative that those in positions of authority acknowledge the gravity of the situation and take meaningful steps to address the damage done. The trust and confidence of aspiring lawyers and the integrity of the legal profession are at stake, and swift action is needed to restore both.

Dara Antova is a final-year law student at Goldsmiths, University of London and is aspiring to qualify as a solicitor in the corporate/commercial sector. Outside of the law, she’s passionate about weight training and travelling.

More than double previous year

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has revealed that next year’s income from the Solicitor Qualifying Exam (SQE) will be a whopping £66 million.

Contained within the SRA’s consultation paper on a draft business plan and budget for 2024-25, the regulator states that income from assessments will more than double from the £30.3 million in 2023-24.

Whilst the exams are currently setting students back £1,798 for SQE1 and £2,766 for SQE2, totalling £4,564, this is set to rise by 5% from September, bringing the new total cost to £4,790.

The income in 2024-25 won’t include this rise, however, with the accounts covering the exams from the previous year, i.e. 2023-24, before the increase has come into effect. The figure will include an earlier, more sizeable, price increase of 11% implemented in September 2023.

Price increases alone don’t account for the growth in income; this is primarily due to a sharp uptick in the number of people taking the exams each year. This income is spent purely on assessment costs.

Within the consultation the regulator has also stated that it will deliver a year-three evaluation of the SQE, and make the exam available in Welsh from January 2025.

The exams have received significant backlash from students, most recently focussing on a marking fiasco which saw 175 candidates told they had failed SQE1, when they had in fact passed. If that wasn’t bad enough, Legal Cheek later revealed that a number of students impacted by the blunder had seen their training contract offers revoked.

Over 870 aspiring lawyers completed latest sitting

Results for the latest sittings of part two of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) have been released today, with the overall pass rate climbing to 73%.

This marks a 9% increase from the previous sitting, where the number of passing students was 64%

In order to pass, students were required to score above 61-62%, depending on whether they took part in the first or second sitting. Across the two sittings, both taking place in January and February this year, the pass rate for the 876 candidates varied between 71% and 75%.

For those taking their first shot at the exam the pass rate was higher at 76%.

As in the last round of results there are significant variations across the scores, with the highest scoring candidates clocking north of 90%, whilst some scored below 30%.

A student’s overall mark is an average of their performance across 16 stations — 12 written stations and four oral stations. These assess skills and applied legal knowledge.

To undertake SQE2 students must first pass SQE1, a test of their grasp of black letter law across two multiple-choice exams.

In April this year 175 students were incorrectly told they had failed their SQE1 exams after a marking error by exam administrator Kaplan. To make matters worse, Legal Cheek later revealed that some students impacted by the blunder had seen their training contract offers revoked.

London uni in early talks with possible partner firms

Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) is set to become the first member of the Russell Group to launch a solicitor apprenticeship programme in partnership with BARBRI.

The six-year pathway for aspiring solicitor apprentices involves splitting their time between their training firm and university, where they complete a certificate of higher education in the first two years, covering topics such as the English legal system, research, drafting, client communication, and an introduction to business finance.

Still in its early planning stages, the programme will see apprentices progressing onto an undergraduate law degree before they embark on the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE), with preparation support from BARBRI during the final two years.

Additionally, over the six years, QMUL School of Law says apprentices will develop their work place skills through various learning projects in collaboration with their training firms. This will likely include areas such as pro-bono and practice innovation.

QMUL is currently in early stage conversations with law firms, in-house legal departments, and legal services providers to explore potential partnerships, with the aim of taking on its first cohort of solicitor apprentices in Autumn 2026.

Separately, BARBRI has partnered with Canterbury Christ Church University, offering discounted access to its SQE prep courses for the university’s students and graduates. This builds on the prep provider’s tie-ups with the likes of Edge Hill, Anglia Ruskin, London South Bank, Leicester De Montfort and King’s College London.

Christopher Howard, university partnerships director for BARBRI, said: “We are delighted to have established this new partnership with the leading team at Canterbury Christ Church University to support students and alumni across their dynamic range of degree programmes on their journey to solicitor qualification.”

Want to find our more about solicitor apprenticeship opportunities? Check out The Legal Cheek Solicitor Apprenticeship Most List 2024, your go-to guide covering everything from pay and locations to number of places and training structure.

Kaplan drafted in top statistician after 175 students were incorrectly told they had failed

An independent review has confirmed the accuracy of the reissued SQE1 results.

Assessment provider Kaplan commissioned an independent review of the revised scores after 175 students were wrongly informed in April that they had failed their exam.

Both Kaplan and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) apologised for the extraordinary blunder, attributing it to a rounding error in the calculation of the final scores.

Affected students were issued their revised scores, but as Legal Cheek reported at the time, some had already seen their training contract offers revoked.

Kaplan stressed that, despite completing “thorough checks” and reviewing the calculations “in detail” before releasing the revised results, it decided to bring in a leading statistician to independently verify the final scores.

This task was given to Anne Pinot de Moira, a chartered statistician with over 25 years of experience working in the fields of assessment and education. She is an Honorary Norham Fellow at the Department of Education, University of Oxford.

In a statement last week, the SRA confirmed that the review had been completed and confirmed the accuracy of the reissued results, including individual marks, quintiles, and overall pass/fail outcomes.

Kaplan is also commissioning a wider independent review of the incident and its causes.

Increase on both firms’ pre-merger offerings

Magic Circle mega-firm A&O Shearman is offering £20,000 in financial support to future trainees as they undertake the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE).

This equates to an increase of £3,000 compared to the £17,000 previously provided to trainees by both firms before the merger, which completed on 1 May.

The Legal Cheek Firms Most List 2024 shows maintenance grants at leading City law firms typically sit between £20,000 and £12,000, although some firms offer much less.

Trainees at the firm complete their SQE studies with BPP University Law School.

Before the merger, A&O recruited approximately 80 trainees annually, whereas Shearman took on around 12 in London. It remains unclear what the new intake will be now the firms have combined.

What we can tell you, however, is their pay; Legal Cheek revealed last month that trainees earn £50,000 in year one, rising to £55,000 in year two, while newly qualified associates start on £125,000. These rates are in line with those previously offered at A&O, but slightly down on Shearman’s before the merger.

Could request super regulator investigation

The Junior Lawyers Division (JLD) has slammed the £250 offered by assessment provider Kaplan to SQE students affected by last week’s major marking blunder, arguing that it doesn’t even “begin to repair the damage that has been caused”.

In a statement on LinkedIn, the representative body said, “an error of this magnitude is simply not acceptable,” and that it would be seeking an urgent meeting with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to discuss how it proposes to rectify this “latest issue.”

Last week, it emerged that a calculation error had led to 175 students being incorrectly informed that they had failed either Functioning Legal Knowledge 1 and/or Functioning Legal Knowledge 2 (the two parts of SQE1), when in reality they had passed.

The JLD, which represents SQE students, trainee solicitors, and junior lawyers across England and Wales, said that it had already reached out to several affected students and urged anyone else impacted by the mistake to contact them directly.

“We reserve the right to call for the Legal Services Board to investigate the matter,” it added.

Legal Cheek revealed last week that students who had their training contract offers rescinded were among those hit by the marking error.

‘Lawrence’ scored 74% on mock test

The London law firm that created an ‘AI paralegal’ capable of passing part one of the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) has received £9.5 million of investment from Google.

Lawhive, founded in 2021, hit headlines last November when it’s AI-powered paralegal successfully completed SQE1, scoring 74% on the multiple choice sample questions available on the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s website.

The bot, dubbed ‘Lawrence’, successfully answered 67 of the 90 multiple choice sample questions, despite struggling with what the firm said were issues with “complex chains of logic and wider context”.

Jump forward a few months and Google Ventures, the venture capital arm of Google’s parent company Alphabet, has pumped £9.5 million into the firm.

Commenting on the the need for AI in law, chief executive of Lawhive, Pierre Proner, said:

“The consumer legal market is totally broken and hasn’t really had an update in hundreds of years. It came out of personal experiences of really battling an airline while trying to get money back during Covid, and feeling totally cut out of the legal system. We went to some high street firms to see if they could help and it was far more expensive than was justified to pay.”

Lawrence, he says, keeps lawyers away from “repetitive legal work”, helping clients find cheaper solutions, whilst ensuring that they’re “not getting an AI chatbot, they are getting a real human lawyer working with them”.

On the new investment, Vidu Shanmugarajah, a partner at Google Ventures, said: “Lawhive not only dramatically improves legal workflows but also makes high quality legal advice more accessible and affordable to a broader audience.”

Earlier this month, one of the UK’s top judges, Lord Justice Birss, noted how “AI used properly has the potential to enhance the work of lawyers and judges enormously”. “It will democratise legal help for unrepresented people” he said, adding that “it can and should be a force for good.”

Told they’d failed SQE1 when actually they’d passed

Students who had their training contract offers rescinded are among those hit by Kaplan’s SQE1 marking error, Legal Cheek can exclusively reveal.

Yesterday, we reported that 175 students, who were initially informed they had failed either Functioning Legal Knowledge 1 and/or Functioning Legal Knowledge 2 (the two parts of SQE1), had actually passed those assessments.

Both Kaplan and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) apologised for the extraordinary blunder, attributing it to a rounding error in the calculation of the final scores.

But the fall-out may only just be beginning. Overnight it has emerged that some students who had their training contracts revoked last month after being told they had failed SQE1 had, in fact, passed the exam.

Now their firms are desperately trying to figure out what to do. For obvious reasons Legal Cheek isn’t naming the students or firms involved. We understand that graduate recruitment teams are busy assessing the various options.

Posting on LinkedIn, the City of London Law Society’s Training Committee urged “any employer with impacted candidates to look extremely carefully at the matter”. They continued:

“We anticipate that this will including proactive and speedy consideration of reinstatement of the employment status of impacted candidates, including those for whom employment has been terminated and/or offers/training contracts rescinded,” it said. “The committee is happy to meet any employers to discuss; we are keen to support.”

56% successfully navigated latest sitting

News that the percentage of students passing SQE1 has risen slightly is unlikely to quell anger over a significant exam blunder by Kaplan which led to 175 students being told they had failed, when they had in fact passed.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) latest statistical report looks at the results of students who sat papers in January this year.

Of the 6,061 candidates who attempted the exams earlier this year, 56% passed. This is a slight increase on the previous sitting where 53% were successful, higher again than last January which saw only 51% of budding solicitors pass.

For those sitting the exam for the first time, the pass rate was slightly higher than the average at 59%, in line with the most recent sitting where first timers were again 3% more likely to pass.

But the news comes amid an outpouring of anger over the new system and a backlash against yesterday’s news that 175 students were wrongly told that they had failed the part of SQE1 after a marking error by exam administrator Kaplan.

“Irony of the SRA demanding a ridiculously high level of junior lawyers when they cannot even reach baseline competence themselves…” vented one anonymous commenter, with a prospective SQE candidate adding:

“I think that I speak for myself and many other candidates who are due to sit SQE1 in July that my confidence has been knocked significantly and this shows that the new marking system is just as confusing for the members of KAPLAN to follow, as well as students/teachers ourselves.”

Another anonymous poster discussed their own experience of the error. “I am one of the people who had their marks revised to a pass and I cannot emphasise enough how traumatic this entire process has been and how much it has affected my confidence in my own ability as well as my confidence in the regulatory body of my future profession.”

Top figures at a number of the UK’s leading law schools added their concerns to the mix, with one describing the situation as an “omnishambles”.

This news comes less than a week after the SRA announced that the SQE exams will be 5% more expensive from September this year.

In recent weeks, Legal Cheek exclusively revealed that a number of firms had rescinded training contract offers from students who failed the most recent SQE exam sitting. It remains to be seen whether any of these students are also affected by the marking blunder.

Mix of concern and anger

Senior figures at some of the country’s biggest law schools have responded to this morning’s news that nearly 200 aspiring lawyers were mistakenly told they had failed parts of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE).

Kaplan and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) today apologised for a calculation error that resulted in 175 students being informed that they had failed either Functioning Legal Knowledge 1 and/or Functioning Legal Knowledge 2 (the two parts of SQE1), when in fact they had passed.

A goodwill payment of £250 is being offered to those candidates for the “upset caused by this matter”.

Reacting to today’s news, Jonny Hurst, presenter of SQE TV, branded the situation an “omnishambles”.

“It’s hard to fathom, isn’t it?” he wrote on LinkedIn. “Some of these candidates will have lost training contracts, which may, after all, now be recoverable. Others will have incurred considerable financial losses, such as accommodation costs and cancelled course fees. And then there are those who may have made significant life decisions off the back of January’s SQE1 ‘fail’. All will have been put through unnecessary distress and anxiety and my heart goes out to each and every one of you.”

“As someone who has been in legal education for over 15 years, I can appreciate how easy it is for a small error to have such far-reaching consequences,” said Hurst.

“The compensation being offered to the affected candidates (£250) will be a drop in the ocean to most. It certainly won’t cover many of their financial losses or the untold negative affect on their mental health. Looks like the SQE is as tough to administer as it is to pass,” Hurst continued.

In a statement to Legal Cheek, BPP’s dean, Jo-Anne Pugh, added, “We are aware of the error and are providing support to the affected students”.

Also reacting to the news, The University of Law‘s deputy vice-chancellor law, Professor Peter Crisp told us:

“Our concern is with those of our students whose future careers may have been impacted by this error. This includes those who may have been reliant on a positive result to secure a training contract. We are working closely with those students affected and our client firms to ensure they are appropriately supported.”

Meanwhile, BARBRI Global’s managing director Lucie Allen said she was concerned by today’s news and that “whilst this is positive for the students who have now passed, it is worrying that an error on this scale has happened”.

“Students will have been impacted in all sorts of ways which are significant and need to be thoroughly reviewed and understood,” she told Legal Cheek. “I am not sure the compensation offered addresses the extent of the repercussions experienced. BARBRI have put in place measures to support students and urge anyone impacted to reach out.

Finally, The College of Legal Practice issued a statement on LinkedIn expressing its deep disappointment, highlighting that the error will have greatly affected students’ wellbeing, confidence and finances. “We are seeing increased levels of anxiety both from our students and those thinking about taking the SQE and this will add to those concerns,” it said.

Dr Giles Proctor, the law school’s CEO, also commented on our coverage of the story.

“The latest from the Solicitors Regulation Authority in terms of their continuing problems with their running of the SQE, Proctor said. “Mistakes do occur and have quite rightly been addressed in this case. However, there is a wider issue emerging here around the dialogue from the SRA with firms, providers and students and how concerns are listened to and addressed.”

“More clear communication is needed and a sense of careful planning and discussion rather than just ploughing on with the same systems,” Proctor continued. “Otherwise, the really important stakeholders in all this, the students undergoing SQE, will continue to be under huge pressure and suffer from mistakes like this.”

Questions remain over whether blunder led to TC offer cancellations

Kaplan and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) have apologised this morning after it emerged that 175 students were incorrectly told they had failed parts of their Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) assessments.

The results for the January 2024 SQE1 assessments have been “reissued” to correct an error by Kaplan in the calculation of students’ scores. The issue came to light as result of students appealing their original scores.

As a result of the error, 175 students who were originally told that they had failed either Functioning Legal Knowledge 1 and/or Functioning Legal Knowledge 2 (the two parts of SQE1) have, in fact, passed those assessments.

News of the exam marking blunder comes just weeks after Legal Cheek exclusively revealed that some students had their training contract offers revoked due to failing the January sitting of SQE1.

At a press briefing this morning, Legal Cheek asked both Kaplan and the SRA if they were aware of any instances where a student’s training contract offer was revoked due to the error.

Zoe Robinson, director of qualifications at Kaplan, said that at this stage, it is not aware of any candidates who have had their training contracts rescinded due to this error, but acknowledged the possibility. She confirmed that Kaplan would collaborate with any affected candidates to ensure they are adequately compensated for any impacts caused by the error.

Explaining how the error occurred, Kaplan and the SRA said: The way the results were presented was new for January’s SQE1 — rather than results being shown as a percentage mark, candidates were given a standardised score out of 500. The mistake was made when implementing this change. It was unique to the January 2024 results — no previous SQE assessments are affected. It was discovered by Kaplan through general checks conducted during the appeals period.”

The error doesn’t impact the overall pass/fail outcome for the other 6,451 candidates who took the assessment. However, certain candidates may notice alterations in their scores or their placement within quintiles. Quintiles classify candidates into five groups, with the top 20% seated in the top quintile, and so forth.

All 6,626 candidates who took SQE1 in January have been contacted by Kaplan and all results from this sitting have been reissued to candidates.

Robinson said:

“We are committed to putting this right for candidates, and sincerely regret and apologise for the impact this has had for those affected. A goodwill payment of £250 is being offered to those candidates who were incorrectly told they had failed an assessment in recognition of the upset caused by this matter. In addition, we recognise that individual candidates who received the incorrect outcome may have been impacted by this in different ways. We would encourage candidates in this group, who have incurred losses as a direct result of this error, to contact our Candidate Services Team to outline your circumstances and each will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. We have set up a dedicated email address for this purpose — SQE1Jan24@kaplan.co.uk.”

Paul Philip, Chief Executive at the Solicitors Regulation Authority, who oversee the SQE and qualification route for solicitors, said:

“We are really disappointed by this error and apologise to the candidates who have been affected. Our immediate priority has been making sure the error has been put right as swiftly as possible, and the impact on candidates is recognised and addressed. We will be doing a full review with Kaplan of how the error occurred, and redoubling efforts on assurance, so we can reduce the risk of an error happening again.”

This isn’t the first example of issues with marking SQE exam papers, although not quite at this scale. In September 2023 Kaplan apologised to students after it identified an “isolated error” with the marking of a small number of SQE2 assessments.

The news comes just days after the SRA confirmed SQE1 and 2 fees will rise by 5% to £1,888 and £2,902, respectively.

SRA says assessment ‘continues to perform well’

Fees for the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) are set to increase for the second time amidst mounting student discontent regarding the centralised assessment.

The current fees for the exams are £1,798 for SQE1 and £2,766 for SQE2, totaling £4,564 for students. This sizeable sum doesn’t include expenses for study materials or preparation courses, which can reach up to £10,000. Starting September 2024, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has today confirmed fees will rise by 5% to £1,888 for SQE1 and £2,902 for SQE2. That’s a total of £4,790.

The news comes less than a year after fees were raised by 11% “due to inflation”.

On the rationale for this latest hike, the regulated said: “Our contract with our assessment provider Kaplan allows for an annual inflation-linked increase in fees.The new fee also includes an additional charge towards the costs of providing for candidates to sit the SQE in Welsh if they wish.”

The increase in fees follows several weeks during which students have expressed concerns about both the delivery and management of assessments, as well as the toll they can take on mental health.

Despite this, the SRA’s latest report on the SQE noted that it “continues to perform well and there can be confidence in this rigorous assessment”.

“The SQE Independent Reviewer”, it goes on to say, “concluded that the delivery of the assessment had overall gone well, had improved year on year and the assessments were fair and reliable.” They did however acknowledge “that there had been some operational issues, but Kaplan had been proactive in dealing with issues when they arose and considered the impact on candidates”.

Commenting on the review, Paul Philip, SRA chief executive, said:

“It’s good to see that once again the reports and analyses, including from the independent reviewer, provide assurances that the SQE is a robust, fair and valid assessment. As numbers taking the SQE route continue to increase we, and the public and wider profession, can have confidence that newly qualified solicitors meet the high standards that we all expect of them.”

Last month Legal Cheek exclusively revealed that a number of City law firms had revoked training contracts from students who failed to pass the SQE1 at their first attempt. These outfits include Clifford Chance, Slaughter and May, and CMS.

Legal Cheek readers call for cheaper fees, better exam rooms, past papers and more

Since Legal Cheek exclusively revealed last week that law firms were rescinding training contract offers from students who failed the SQE on their first attempt, social media has been flooded with criticism of the solicitors’ assessment.

With this in mind, Legal Cheek took to its busy socials to ask its law student and lawyer followers: how do you think the SQE can be improved?

It’s evident from the responses we received that the cost of the exams is a source of annoyance. One lecturer and solicitor took to LinkedIn to write: “… the costs of the examinations bear no relation to reasonable expense and are clearly out of step with agendas of widening participation, diversity and open access.”

Another unhappy follower also called for a reduction in exam fees and suggested students with a law degree be exempt from SQE1. The “whole system needs revising!” they wrote. “Nothing accessible about it unfortunately.”

Currently, exam fees for SQE1 amount to £1,798, and for SQE2, £2,766. However, self-funded students must additionally bear the expenses of a preparation course, which can vary from a couple of thousand pounds to well over £10,000. Students are also required to pay the full exam fees again for resits.

“The exams, introduced to improve accessibility indisputably make the profession less accessible,” another follower wrote on Instagram. “Candidates are fumbling in the dark without clear direction, have to take annual leave to study for the exams, and I met a few candidates who had to take a bank loan to fund the endeavour. As well as this, City law firms are still internally peddling the view that TC’s are the superior method to qualification whilst SQE + QWE is spoken about as being inferior.”

Making changes to the exam venues, the IT and the practicalities of sitting the SQE also seem high on the agenda when talking improvements.

“[The] centres are categorically not the right venue for these exams,” claimed one SQE student. “I personally experienced a protracted distraction during one of the written exams… while other candidates I know experienced outages, frozen screens and delays.”

Another commenter went as far as to suggest that the SRA “needs to sack” SQE assessment provider Kaplan. “The SQE has been plagued with issues since its launch in 2021,” they said. “Considering the cost of the exams, the IT platforms simply aren’t fit for use.”

Another reader suggested the “locations and [exam] rooms should be appropriate,” before claimng that their oral exams were conducted in a “re-arranged hotel bedroom”. Continuing, they said “given you’re in a closed room with only one examiner this can be uncomfortable for some people. A meeting room or classroom is more appropriate”.

Along with adding more (appropriate) exam locations, they go on to say that “exam day rules should be reasonable to reduce on-the-day stress” and “it’s not necessary to ban water during the exams”.

Other readers also raised concerns with the pass rate. “Right now it is clear that the numbers of those successfully completing the SQE exams is far too low,” one concerned follower wrote. “When students with extensive and high-level experience from within legal practice are unsuccessful then it is clear that there is a worrying disconnect between training provider outcomes and the final examination requirements.”

They continued: “A first step would be ensure that a more open dialogue exists between the SRA, Kaplan and training providers to ensure that the high expense of taking on formal training is directed towards best preparation.”

“The use of an MCQ/best answer format is clearly at odds with the actual requirements of the job role in practice,” they continued. “We are looking for analytical and creative minds who can provide the best service to clients — we do not need people with eidetic memory — although I did quite enjoy watching Mike Ross in Suits.”

Improving the study materials was also a suggestion that featured heavily across Legal Cheek’s socials. This comment on Insta summed up the mood:

“A more specific specification or a textbook [should be] provided by Kaplan so that different providers can standardise the information required to be taught. Split the exams to smaller chunks by subjects. Provide a few past papers (the sample questions on the website are not an accurate representation of the level of difficulty).”

Many commenters went as far as calling for the SQE to be scrapped and replaced with its predecessor the Legal Practice Course.

How do you think the SQE can be improved? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

SQE fallout continues

CMS and Slaughter and May have become the latest law firms to rescind the training contract offers of future trainees who failed to pass the SQE at the first time of asking. It comes just days after we revealed Clifford Chance had let go of around four offer holders under similar circumstances.

CMS, which takes on 95 trainees each year on a starting salary of £50,000 in London, has confirmed a number of training contract offers have been revoked following the most recent batch of SQE1 results.

A spokesperson for the firm told Legal Cheek:

“While we hold the expectation for successful completion of the SQE examinations on the first attempt, we understand that occasional setbacks may occur. Considering the recent SQE1 results, we have regretfully withdrawn certain training contract offers; however, we have diligently evaluated each circumstance individually. We maintain ongoing communication with all our students to ensure they are informed about and utilising the additional support resources at their disposal, should the need arise.”

Meanwhile it’s understood that Slaughters has also taken similar action.

A spokesperson for the firm, which also recruits around 95 trainees each year on a starting salary of £50,000, said: “We don’t comment on individual situations, but each instance is assessed on a case-by-case basis.”

The Magic Circle firm followed a similar process under the Legal Practice Course (LPC), the predecessor to the SQE.

Earlier today we reported that the Patrick McCann, chair of the City of London Law Society’s training committe, had called on law firms to adopt a more supportive approach towards aspiring lawyers sitting the “extremely challenging” SQE.

“I’d urge all law firms to engage with their future talent who need to retake their first attempt at SQE1.” Patrick McCann told Legal Cheek. “SQE1 is an extremely challenging assessment, testing against NQ knowledge criteria (with most sponsored students undergoing the assessment more than two years before solicitor qualification), with a pass rate only just above 50%, very significantly below the pass rates for LPC, which SQE replaces.”