There are few practice areas more interesting than crime, says David Green, Academic Manager and criminal law lecturer at ULaw Birmingham

“Crime attracts a certain type of person. You need a particular type of personality to survive a career in criminal law because although it seems sexy, the reality in practice isn’t quite so glamorous,” says David Green, Academic Manager and criminal law lecturer at The University of Law (ULaw)’s Birmingham campus. “The hours are long, and it’s a really adversarial area of law, so you need to be able to cope mentally with the fact that you’re always up against somebody else: whether it’s the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the police, or the courts service. You’re always in that ‘rough-and-tumble’ and that’s not for everyone,” he says.

Having had a “fairly traditional” route into legal practice, Green undertook the LPC with The College of Law (ULaw’s predecessor) before beginning his career in criminal defence. “I worked my way up through a specialist criminal law firm, becoming a partner and later a Higher Courts Advocate before making the step over to legal education at ULaw,” he tells Legal Cheek Careers. “I always tell my students: given that we’re all likely to be working until we’re 75 now, everyone has time for two careers! For me, moving over to ULaw just felt like the right time for me to try something different.”

Digging into his attraction to life in criminal law, we’re keen to ask Green his reasoning behind forging a legal career in this direction. “I had done quite a lot of work experience during my degree, especially in mixed practice firms, and I think this is one of the best ways as a student to get a good sense of whether you will actually like certain areas of law,” he says. After having completed some work experience in criminal legal practice, Green says he just fell in love with it. “In order to adapt to such an intense daily working environment, it helps if you can learn to make light out of often dark situations,” Green explains. “I think the closest profession to being a criminal defence solicitor is being a doctor. You need to be able to find the humour in the horrible things that happen, and still be able to switch off at the end of your shift, go home, and be present in your personal life.

 “What really drew me to crime was the fact that it’s fun. There’s no other area of law where you find such odd things that have happened to people! I have a fascination in how seemingly ordinary people can often find themselves caught up in the criminal justice system,” he says. “There’s a huge range of clients you’re dealing with, which is brilliant. I love the cut and thrust of it; the adversarial nature of the practice—and no two days are ever the same!”

Speaking on his experiences of becoming a partner in a criminal defence practice, Green explains that naturally, his responsibilities ratchetted up a notch. “Attaining partnership meant not only taking on more complex and high-level cases, but also taking a new responsibility over the business itself. In a legal aid practice, this means trying to be as efficient as possible,” he says. In contrast to many commercial practices, Green explains that criminal firms have to stay flexible and agile. “No matter what the government threw at us in terms of legal aid reforms, we had to think about how we could continue to make money in a new and changing system.”

Given current political events, we ask Green how he imagines the general election is likely to impact criminal practices in the UK that are reliant on legal aid cases. “The sad reality is that there are no votes in legal aid. The only people voting that have an interest in legal aid reforms, are for obvious reasons, legal aid lawyers. Many people never consider that they will have the need for legal aid, and therefore this issue remains rather invisible,” he says. “Nobody asks to be dragged into the criminal justice system; whether you’re a victim of a crime or accused of a crime, you’re pushed into that system by the state. So, I think it’s fundamentally wrong that the state doesn’t have a system in place to properly provide for legal representation in every situation,” he explains.

“Unfortunately for many who need legal aid to access justice, it’s not really on the agenda of either of the big political parties, so it’s unlikely that we’ll see an improvement in legal aid policy in the near future,” he says.

Nevertheless, the introduction of the SQE is opening the doors to publicly funded practice for law students. Rather than having to bag ‘golden ticket’ training contracts in criminal law, students can now build their two years’ qualifying work experience (QWE) in criminal practice and qualify as a solicitor through this new route. We ask Green how ULaw is preparing its students to succeed on the SQE and to hit the ground running in such a demanding legal practice. “For SQE1, single best answer questions (SBAQs) assess far more detailed or niche areas of law and procedure than were being assessed previously. So, our teaching has become much more specific by delving into all of the detailed areas of criminal practice much more than we did previously, to ensure that our students are prepared,” he says. “Students are now being assessed as a day one solicitors rather than as trainees. So, the level of knowledge taught on our SQE programmes has also shifted up a couple of degrees; we’re teaching to a much higher level.”

For students who are keen to embrace the “rough-and-tumble” of criminal legal practice, they are not only taught by qualified criminal lawyers, but they can also gain first-hand experience at ULaw, says Green. “Students can go to our pro bono clinic at ULaw and gain legal work experience actually dealing with real clients. This is a great way very early in a legal career, to feel the pressure of having a real person in front of you with a real legal problem that you’re trying to solve,” he says. With employability skills at the core of ULaw’s student offering, Green is keen to emphasise the part that advocacy plays in building the skills that future criminal lawyers need in practice. “There is no other area of law where advocacy is so fundamental to practice as in criminal law. I also teach advocacy skills as part of ULaw’s Bar Practice Course (BPC) for future barristers. Advocacy, though a skill which students are often afraid of, is taught at ULaw the same as any other skill like riding a bike. It’s a case of practising, reflecting on your practise, and practising again!”

Discover more tips on succeeding in your legal career this afternoon at ‘Secrets to Success Birmingham — with Pinsent Masons, Reed Smith, DWF, Browne Jacobson and ULaw’ an in-person student event running tomorrow, Thursday (27^th June). Apply for one of the final few places.

About Legal Cheek Careers posts.

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.

BPP’s Head of Outreach joins future trainees to discuss the key considerations when selecting a prep course

With so many options available, choosing the right Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) course can feel overwhelming for aspiring lawyers.

During a recent Legal Cheek virtual event (full video embedded above), Jonny Hurst, BPP’s Head of Outreach and former partner at a City law firm, teamed up with SQE1 Award Leader Julie Harris to discuss key factors to consider when making this crucial decision, including costs, pass rates, reputation and content.

They were joined by future trainees from two City firms and a current trainee from BPP’s Social Impact Team, who shared their experiences of preparing for the exams and offered advice to those considering this route to qualification as solicitors.

Legal Cheek is running ‘The SQE series’ with BPP University Law School. The video of each session will be made available one month after each virtual event together with further FAQs arising from each session which SQE experts from BPP are answering.

About Legal Cheek Careers posts.

ULaw student Freya Patten shares her experience of the SQE and her transition from a science grad to future lawyer

Freya Patten, an SQE student at The University of Law (ULaw)’s London Moorgate campus, began her education journey in the sciences before switching to law.

Having secured a training contract at DLA Piper and now embarking on the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE), she spoke to Legal Cheek Careers about the realities that non-law students face on this new route to qualification and how the exams particularly impact neurodivergent students.

Can you tell us a little bit about your education so far?

In secondary school, I was really interested in biology and the humanities, so I pursued these passions at A-Level by taking biology, chemistry, and philosophy. When it came time to choose a university course, my interest in the sciences led me to environmental sciences because it combined most of my interests. This broad undergraduate program, which included biology, chemistry, physics, geology, geography, and social sciences, offered numerous career options, making it a solid foundation for my future

What prompted you to make the switch from science to law?

When I began my first year of environmental science at the University of Southampton, law quickly became a real interest for me. This interest developed as I researched different career paths. The main paths that attracted me were environmental consultancy and environmental law, which would inevitably require further legal education. I started taking the necessary steps to transition into a legal career with a focus on environmental law. Protecting the environment is a passion for me, and I want a career where I can make a real difference.

Which aspects of SQE1 did you struggle with the most, and how did you manage to overcome these challenges?

I think I struggled the most with the structure of the exam day. During revision, you reach a point where you’ve covered everything you need to know; the knowledge itself isn’t the issue. The challenge lies in the way you are assessed. The knowledge tested is pinpointed to very specific areas, and you’re presented with five answer options that are all equally legally valid. In my opinion, practice is absolutely key.

I also struggled with my dyslexia during SQE1. It is well-known that students with learning difficulties are at a disadvantage with multiple choice questions. The SQE1 exam consists of 360 single best answer questions, which is a huge task. Due to my dyslexia, I was given extra time, which extended my total exam time to around six and a half hours in one day—very challenging.

To manage this, I practiced repeatedly and ensured I had measures in place to take breaks on the exam day without becoming overwhelmed. It’s important to stress that this style of exam is particularly discriminatory towards students with learning difficulties.

While the underlying law is the same for both SQE1 and 2, SQE2 tests the knowledge in a very different way. How did you find the transition between the two assessments?

I must admit, it was very strange getting used to the examination style of SQE1, only to shift gears for SQE2. I found that I not only had to change the way I revised, but also the way I initially learned the content.

For SQE1, you could learn the content to the extent that you felt confident pinpointing the right answer based on the knowledge you had accumulated. However, with SQE2, you’re not afforded the same luxury. You don’t necessarily get the same ‘hints’ that consistent practice with SQE1 exams provides.

Because of this, I felt like I had to revisit and re-learn the knowledge from SQE1 in a different way. With SQE2, the written exams require a deep understanding of the underlying law to analyse and reach a reasonable conclusion. For the SQE2 oral exams, you not only need to know the material but also how to present it, how to communicate with a judge, how to conduct interviews, and how to ensure the client is comfortable in the interview setting. Each of these requires a vastly different skill set and approach.

What did you find most challenging when preparing for SQE2?

The most challenging was this transition; trying to switch gears effectively. Having to re-learn and revise the SQE1 content again was particularly intense.

It didn’t help that the SQE1 exam results were released around six weeks before we were expected to take the SQE2. So, I struggled a little with motivation! We suddenly had very limited time ahead of the release of SQE1 results to prepare for the next SQE exams that were in many ways even harder than SQE1.

For this reason, I must admit that I personally found that SQE2 was the more challenging set of exams out of the two.

What was your experience of the SQE1 and 2 exam days, and was there anything about them that caught you off-guard?

At this stage, the administrative errors around the SQE exams were common knowledge.

But personally, when it came to the exams, I feel like I had quite a smooth run! Given that I’m dyslexic, I was allocated to a specific test centre which contributed to an overarchingly positive experience. Having said this, I don’t have any experience with the neurotypical test centres and therefore I cannot comment on this specifically.

It’s true that we weren’t allowed water in the exam room for the SQE 1 or SQE 2 written exams as they were computer rooms. However, we were allowed outside of the exam room whenever we wanted to drink. Nothing caught me off guard necessarily as I had done a considerable amount of prep for the day. For me, the prep felt like it was the one thing I could control — I could ensure I knew what to do during the exam itself.

I was undoubtedly shocked about the SQE1 errors on the results though. That was a very stressful day. I received an e-mail from the SRA that just said, “your results to the SQE 1 have been changed, please log in to see” — my heart dropped right to my feet.

You completed a law conversion course before starting the SQE. Do you think this course is essential for non-law students before beginning the SQE?

Personally, I cannot stress enough how important my law conversion course was. It covered all the black letter law essential for a law degree and for taking the SQE. Without this core legal knowledge, I wouldn’t have been able to pass the SQE. This is because, when you’re completing the LLM in preparation for the SQE1 exams, these core law areas are not covered. You go straight into ‘practical’ legal modules, assuming you already know the basics. So, in the end, I believe that skipping the PGDL won’t save you costs in the long run, but rather, that it increases your chances of success in qualifying.

Lastly, is there anything you would have done differently in any aspect of your SQE journey?

I wouldn’t change anything about my leg of the journey running up to SQE1 purely because I passed and that in itself, I consider an absolute miracle!

With SQE2, I worked as much as I could, although I would have potentially started preparing for the oral exams a little earlier. But, because of the way the SQE2 exams are structured, I found it hard to focus too much on the exams that were a few weeks later. On the flip, I think it was beneficial to practice my orals with my friends and listen to others advocate and interview.

Freya Patten will be speaking at ‘The SQE: students and law firms share their stories — with ULaw’, a virtual student event taking place on Tuesday 25 June.  Apply now to attend.

About Legal Cheek Careers posts.

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.

BPP student Ifeoluwa Aderibigbe shares her experience and why legal work can be the key to success

“The Solicitors Qualifying Exams (SQE) have been interesting,” says Ifeoluwa Aderibigbe, current SQE 1&2 LLM student at BPP University Law School. “I’ve never had to do anything like this before, because all of my exams on my law degree were essay-based. So, it’s taken me some time to get used to the multiple-choice question (MCQ) style.” With this interview coming straight off the back of Aderibigbe finishing her SQE2 exams, Legal Cheek Careers is keen to find out more about her experience so far.

“Even though I’ve done work in a legal clinic, I had never engaged with legal drafting and legal research prior to starting SQE2 preparation, so it has come as somewhat of a challenge,” notes Aderibigbe. “But overall, I’ve found the experience really beneficial because it has taught me so many of the skills that I’ve needed for my work at BPP’s Legal Clinic.”  By working for BPP’s Social Impact team, Aderibigbe is building up her Qualifying Work Experience (QWE). This means that by the time she finishes her six-month placement with BPP, she will have completed 25% of her QWE if she decides to qualify via the QWE portfolio route.

However, she still hopes to secure a two-year traditional training contract at a single employer. “My SQE experience has been really fundamental in helping me to build the skills that I use day-to-day working on cases at the clinic, but also to help build those skills that I’ll need when I ultimately become a qualified solicitor,” she explains.

Talking on why she chose BPP as a provider, she tells us that it’s undeniable that the pass rate influenced her choice. “It’s significantly higher than the national average at BPP, so I wanted to ensure that I was choosing a provider which would give me the best chance of success,” she explains. “And, I have to say that I have no regrets choosing BPP as a provider for the SQE. We’re provided with revision notes and videos which help you to navigate the knowledge that you need to bring over from a law degree,” she says.

“And aside from this, the structure of teaching at BPP is very good,” she continues. “Before each class, we’re all given a ‘prepare task’, and during the session we’re given an ‘apply task’, which really helped me personally to cement my knowledge.”

So, she says, even during SQE1 preparation, students already have an idea of the types of skills they’ll need for SQE2 — given that most of the knowledge tested is ‘applied’ within the classroom. “The tasks that we’re given throughout, whether these are the tasks during each session or the practice exams, all really resonated with the actual formulation of the exams, so in my opinion BPP’s SQE prep course can’t be faulted,” she explains.

After announcing last year that BPP was taking on five ‘qualifying work experience’ trainees to work within its pro bono clinic, Aderibigbe found herself as one of the law school’s first student recruits. We probed her on the kind of work she’s been undertaking. “I had some previous experience in BPP’s Legal Advice Clinic, so I wanted to explore my legal journey with the Social Impact team,” she explains. “But since I’ve started, I advise on civil litigation matters which really relate to what I’ll be doing in practice. I meet with clients and conduct client interviews with a solicitor supervisor, and afterwards I send letters of advice out to each client on their case,” she says. “So, it helps me both to revise all of the knowledge I’ve learned throughout my undergraduate degree and the SQE exams, but also to put this knowledge into practice.”

Although she’s still planning on going down the traditional training contract route rather than building her QWE across multiple organisations, this experience is guaranteed to help her stand out from the TC-hunting crowd. “Interviewing clients is something which I’ve always wanted to do. I really enjoy the aspect of seeing a case through from start to finish, and I find it so rewarding to be able build my confidence and experience,” she says. Working with a lot of qualified solicitors, she tells us that it’s also been incredible exposure to legal practice.

Noting how much this experience helped her in the SQE2 exams, she says:

 “I would advise anyone taking SQE2 to gain work experience before they take the exam. It really helps. When I walked into the client interviewing assessment on the SQE2 exam, it felt so natural because this is something that I do every day at work!”

Aderibigbe will be speaking at Legal Cheek’s event, “SQE courses: everything you need to know”, which is just around the corner, on 6 June. With this in mind, we quiz her on her general advice for SQE students. “The first tip I would give is to make the decision not to self-study. Self-study for the SQE is not going to take you as far as with a provider. There are some things my tutors taught me in class which are not in the materials, yet still became fundamental to my success on the exams,” she explains. “Aside from this, as I mentioned previously, work experience really is key to the SQE2 exams. And, finally, although practice exams are key, try not to focus solely on MCQ prep. Broadening your knowledge so that it’s applicable widely to many types of questions prevents students from the path-dependency that comes with over-reliance on previous practice exam answers.”

On a final note, she urges SQE students to prepare for all eventualities. “The SQE exams can surprise you. Choosing to study in a way which is new or unfamiliar to you may be the key to success. Expect the unexpected”.

Ifeoluwa Aderibigbe will be speaking at ‘SQE courses: everything you need to know — with BPP University Law School’, a virtual student event taking place on Thursday 6 June. Apply now to attend.

About Legal Cheek Careers posts.

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.

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.

BPP’s Head of Outreach joins SQE Award Leaders and future trainees to discuss part one of the solicitors’ assessment

The Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) is now just over three years old, and multiple cohorts have already completed both the SQE1 and SQE2 assessments.

During a recent Legal Cheek virtual event (full video above), a panel session led by BPP’s Head of Outreach and former City law firm partner Jonny Hurst, along with SQE Award Leaders Allison Banks (responsible for City Consortium Plus Programme and Essentials for Practice) and Ayesha Anandappa (overseeing LPC Firm Specific and Essentials for Practice), delved into all aspects of SQE1.

The informative discussion covered a range of topics, including the format, booking process, content, and assessments for SQE1. Additionally, it featured an interactive analysis of sample questions aimed at helping aspiring lawyers understand what to expect.

The panel also included current SQE students from BPP who have recently passed SQE1, such as Mikaela Hristova, a future trainee at Stephenson Harwood, and Christian Stocker, a future trainee at Walker Morris. Together, they shared insights into their course experiences and offered advice to those considering the SQE route.

Legal Cheek is running ‘The SQE series’ with BPP University Law School. The video of each session will be made available one month after each virtual event together with further FAQs arising from each session which SQE experts from BPP are answering.

Follow @BPPGroup

About Legal Cheek Careers posts.

BPP’s Head of Outreach joins future trainees for an in-depth look at part two of the centralised assessment

Now well into its third year, the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) has seen multiple cohorts complete both SQE1 and SQE2 exams. Yet, for aspiring solicitors, these assessments continue to present a daunting prospect.

During a recent Legal Cheek virtual event (full video embedded above), Jonny Hurst, BPP’s Head of Outreach and former partner at a City law firm, teamed up with Laura Bains, BPP’s SQE2 Award Leader, to delve into part two of the centralised assessment.

They were joined by students who are going through the process themselves, including Madelaine Moss, current SQE student and future trainee at Addleshaw Goddard, Jasmine Sayany, future trainee at Watson Farley & Williams, and Daria Slavnova, who is currently studying the SQE LLM with BPP.

The panel shared their experiences, insights gained, and lessons learned, while also offering a comprehensive overview of SQE2 content, format, booking process, and pass rates. Additionally, the event featured an interactive analysis of a sample SQE2 question and a discussion on strategies for maximising success in these challenging assessments.

Legal Cheek is running ‘The SQE series’ with BPP University Law School. The video of each session will be made available one month after each virtual event together with further FAQs arising from each session which SQE experts from BPP are answering.

Follow @BPPGroup

About Legal Cheek Careers posts.

BARBRI’s Jody Tranter discusses how the law school’s innovative approach helps create bespoke learning experiences for its students

“My whole career has been in education,” says Jody Tranter, BARBRI’s Head of Learning & Product. The core of her career has been focusing on using data to create improvements in legal and professional education. “Even before AI and data-driven approaches,” she says, “analysing what’s working well to create improvements was at the heart of my role”. So, when her former employer Altior was acquired by BARBRI in 2019, the move “fit seamlessly with my skillset, because BARBRI is very data and technology driven when it comes to providing what students really need to be successful”.

Talking innovation in legal education, Tranter explains that this ethos is embedded in the core offering at BARBRI. “Technology is really at the heart of what we provide because we have always been a fully online provider,” she tells Legal Cheek Careers. “Our technology feeds into our course design and enables us to fully personalise each learning programme, allowing each student to have an individualised learning experience”. In this vein, for Tranter, legal innovation is about capturing the ability to adapt new forms of learning to fit all types of aspiring lawyers.

But how is this really showcased at BARBRI? Tranter gives us the details. “By leveraging over 50 years of experience in legal education, our learning platform is designed so that all of the content that students need is there, at the point at which they need it,” she says. “This way, our students can consume that content in a way which is suitable for them.” She tells us that this is really where the technology-focus at BARBRI comes in.

“Our learning platform guides each student individually, by for example, guiding students on how many hours to spend on each topic per day and how many tasks to do”. This platform self-adjusts its timetabling depending on whether students want to block out certain times each week for other commitments, she explains. “If a student falls behind their personalised schedule, our platform will also guide them on which tasks to focus on, by assigning them the tasks that are more impactful to their learning first.” BARBRI sees a diverse array of students, from solicitor apprentices to those qualified overseas, non-law graduates and more. These course design features are one of the ways that BARBRI tailors its content to suit individual needs.

This personalisation is key when it comes to preparing for the Solicitors Qualifying Exams (SQE), we’re told, because it’s no misnomer that the SQE is not a walk in the park. “They’re very challenging exams,” Tranter begins, “but it’s not a challenge to succeed if you’re well prepared”. She says the US Bar Exam has consisted of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) for a number of years  — a similar structure to the SQE1 exams.

“In the UK we’re adjusting to this style of examination, and this shift is what is more challenging. Students and providers should understand that assessing students in this way is so different to other assessment formats and requires a different type of learning and preparation,” Tranter says.

BARBRI’s experience preparing students for the likes of the New York and California bar exams has helped build its reputation in preparing students for this style of assessment. “We’re always looking at how students score on exams, which parts of each exam have students performed well on, which parts have they found more challenging and how is each student doing individually,” says Tranter. By running statistical analysis in the background, BARBRI determines whether its learning methods are statistically sound.

“We’re able to utilise and analyse that data to improve and personalise our courses. For example, in a typical lecture scenario, you can never fully understand and analyse individual student comprehension. But at BARBRI, we’re lucky to have the data-capture technology to help each individual student succeed on each course and prepare them fully for the exams,” she tells us. This helps BARBRI to target the support that each student needs to succeed, whether studying full-time or part-time, a law graduate or a non-law graduate, or have additional learning needs.

“The learning science we put behind the scenes, in terms of how people best learn, has been built into each programme to get the best outcome from each student,” Tranter explains.

Tranter is quick to reassure that even though technology and innovation may be “at the heart” of BARBRI’s offering, this doesn’t mean that students forego interactions with individuals. In fact, she stresses, individual contact and feedback is really at the root of its SQE offering. “Each student has access to a learning coach; an experienced person who they can reach out to at any time and make an appointment with,” she says. “So, if students are struggling with their mental health or need some extra support, they can reach out if and when they need it.” She says, “this support is really about helping to keep students motivated and on-track. This combination of personalisation and tech innovation is the key to success for BARBRI students.”

Emphasising that feedback and interaction with learning coaches is one of the unique selling points of its SQE courses, Tranter takes us through how this is structured: “For SQE 1, students receive instant feedback on their MCQ practice questions but also opportunities for live feedback and discussion with our Learning Coaches. Similarly, for SQE 2, we provide extensive amounts of individualised feedback on their skills assessments.” Tranter stresses that feedback is ultimately key to success in the exams because it provides the opportunity for both BARBRI and the student to identify their strengths and weaknesses, and work towards the assessment with those in mind.

On the theme of personalisation, we’re keen to explore with Tranter how the law school is approaching diversifying their offering to different learners. She highlights that the fundamental issue is that everyone will be taking the same assessment, but each individual’s path to that final assessment will vary. “With a huge array of students doing SQE preparation with the provider, it’s important that its courses are tailored in terms of accessibility to allow each type of learner to thrive”, she says.

Diving deeper, Tranter explains that “we’ve built all of our content with accessibility in mind, such as providing students with the ability to customise font colour and sizing options, text-to-speech technology etc”. For students with additional needs, “these facets are built into the tech from the start”. She further stresses the importance of homing in on developing the skills and techniques needed for students with additional needs to feel more confident tackling the exams. “To that end, we run workshops and strategy sessions to help all students learn those crucial exam techniques and to support students in adopting successful learning approaches that suit their learning preferences”.

Without giving too much away, we ask Tranter whether she can give us an insight into what BARBRI plans on covering at LegalEdCon2024. “The key thing for us is diversity, and how important it is to individual students and the profession as a whole”. She says, “the SQE was created to open up access and help to support more diversity in the profession, so we’ll be touching on the way we design our courses to support this ultimate goal.”

BARBRI will be speaking at LegalEdCon 2024, Legal Cheek’s annual future of legal education and training conference, which takes place in-person on Thursday 16 May at Kings Place, London. Final release tickets for the Conference can be purchased here.

Follow @BarbriSqe

About Legal Cheek Careers posts.

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.

Mikaela Hristova, future trainee solicitor at Stephenson Harwood and current BPP SQE student, discusses her exam experience

Mikaela Hristova, a future trainee solicitor at Stephenson Harwood, recently completed and passed SQE1 in January. Recounting her post-exam worries, she tells me, “for FLK 2, I was convinced that I’d failed, but I ended up being in the top quintile. It just goes to show, you never know!”

Like many SQE1 candidates, Hristova felt very anxious going into her SQE LLM course at BPP. “The main issue is the uncertainty, just because the SQE is such a new process of qualifying. The information that is out there is, I would say, more negative than it is positive,” she says. Even towards the end, Hristova did not feel better about her prospects. “I was hearing about all these amazing and exceptional students going to top firms who were failing SQE1. I felt that no matter how much work I put into it, there was a 50-50 chance that I would fail, which is a huge gamble.”

It is safe to say Hristova worked hard regardless. When discussing her study technique, she explains that she developed a study system based on her visual learning style. “I was doing a lot of mind maps with a mixture of things.” She recalls taking screenshots of diagrams and flow charts from the resources provided by BPP, then annotating them in mind maps.

She also used flash cards to revise the multiple-choice questions (MCQs) she had answered incorrectly in practice papers. In the final month leading up to the exams, Hristova copied her study notes onto sticky notes, which she then stuck onto her fridge. “Every morning I would spend maybe one or two hours going through every single thing,” she says. “Even the legal rules that I knew and was quite comfortable with, I would really make sure I knew them.”

However, Hristova stresses the importance of being strategic with your learning when it comes to SQE1. “The thing with it is that it’s a very holistic exam. Sometimes it’s about breadth, not depth,” she explains. “Get the general principles, ask the questions in class and all that, but move on afterwards because we just need to be very strategic with how much there is that can come up in the exams.”

While Hristova happily divulges her study methods, she also notes that they may not work for everyone. In her study group, she saw that her peers all had very different approaches. Seeing that some of her classmates were solely doing practice questions in the final month, Hristova at times felt that she was adopting the wrong tactics. “I was putting so much pressure on myself that I started doing MCQs for a whole week, but in the end, I knew that it wasn’t working for me,” she explains. Now, she believes that students should feel less guilty about taking more time to understand the material, because what really matters is just knowing and understanding the law. “If flash cards work better, then just do flashcards. If MCQs work better, just do MCQs.”

I assumed that Hristova would find the SQE’s biggest challenge to be the volume of information that candidates are expected to learn and retain, but that was not the case. “The hardest part for me was actually just going in with the idea that there was a possibility that I might fail regardless of how much work I had done.” It’s no surprise then, that her tutor’s advice to think and stay positive was instrumental throughout her SQE1 preparations. Reflecting on the importance of mental health support during this period, Hristova remarks, “I was very lucky to have a tutor at BPP who would always make the time to speak to me after class and address my concerns”.

When I ask Hristova for her advice for future SQE1 candidates, Hristova offers these words of hope and encouragement: “Don’t focus too much on the negative news out there. Even though there is a lot of uncertainty, hard work actually equals very good results in the end.”

It’s clear that a strong mindset has been crucial to Hristova’s success, whether with exams or with securing a training contract. She explains that she met the firm at law fairs on multiple occasions, building connections and strengthening her resolve to secure a vacation scheme with them. “Getting a training contract is about persistence, so it’s important to stay at it and taking advantage of as many experiences as you can get”, advises Hristova.

In this vein, she notes the importance of “getting yourself out there and speaking to people” as the key to securing legal opportunities. “I attended so many Legal Cheek events. I reached out to a lot of people on LinkedIn. I asked a lot of people about their experience with applications, and I was quite surprised to find that there are actually so many trainees and future trainees who are willing to help.”

As we approach the end of our conversation, Hristova explains that she stood out in her applications by showing how her personality and career aspirations matched the firm she was applying to. “This will sound like such a cliché but it’s just about being yourself – not being afraid to talk about your experiences and how they shaped you as an aspiring lawyer.”

Mikaela Hristova will be speaking at “A deep dive into SQE1 – with BPP University Law School” a virtual student event taking place this Thursday (11 April). Apply now to attend.

Follow @BPPGroup

About Legal Cheek Careers posts.