The story so far – is the SQE achieving its aims?

The SQE 2 results announcement on August 25^th was a huge milestone for the legal profession. After years of wrangling and consulting, those who passed have become the first to meet the new standard of competence expected by the SRA and are within touching distance of becoming newly minted, SQE qualified, solicitors. With that in mind, it is the perfect moment for law firms to stop and reflect on what they have learnt so far and what may have changed as a result of this. Whilst it is too early to draw any definitive conclusions, we can at least take stock of the SQE’s start in life, especially with regards to the SRA’s stated aims around diversity and inclusion.

First, a little bit of a refresher on how we got to this point. The Legal Practice Course (LPC), also known as the Postgraduate Diploma in Legal Practice, has long been a part of the process to qualifying as a solicitor in England and Wales. It was first introduced in 1993 as the final educational stage, designed to provide a bridge between academic study and practical legal training.

In recent years, the LPC was increasingly criticized, for reasons including relevancy, length, cost, range of electives and the number of places available. As to the last point, year on year, the number of places offered each year by LPC providers massively exceeds the number of vacancies for training contracts. According to the latest Law Society Annual Statistical report, trainee registrations dropped by over 11% in 2019-20. There were 5,626 trainee registrations in 2019-20, an 11.3% decrease from the year before. In that same year, 11,021 LPC places were available, a number which has remained steady to within a few hundred from 2015 until 2021.

The commercial concerns are that taking the LPC is expensive, leaving many students, like myself who did not have a training contract at the time, with a sizeable debt with no guarantee of a return on the financial investment. This, in part, further served to exacerbate the challenges to entry of the legal profession to those from particular backgrounds (i.e. social mobility, race and ethnicity).

The introduction of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE), whilst phasing out the LPC sought to:

“……. introduce a single, rigorous assessment for all aspiring solicitors on 1 September 2021. The SQE will mean everyone meets the same consistent, high standards at the point they become a solicitor.”

The question is, has the SQE thus far, delivered its aims in terms of diversity and inclusion?

To answer this question, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) sought the assistance of the Bridge Group, research experts on diversity and social equality, to produce an independent report into the diversity implications of the SQE. The report contains a wealth of information, but some key points are:

• The recommendation for the SRA, which Kingsley Napley supports, of disaggregation of the conflated BAME group (e.g. separating Black, Asian, Mixed/Other and White candidates) to enable more meaningful assessment, and to inform future practices;
• In respect of the SQE1 pilot, white candidates generally perform better than those from other ethnic groups, in assessment of Functioning Legal Knowledge (FLK) - and particularly in the skills assessment aspect of the SQE; and
• It is essential, in order to achieve its diversity aims, the SRA monitors and analyses pricing of the SQE as it becomes available, and to be explicit and objective about how the new market pricing compares to the current pricing.

As reported by the Lawyer, following the first SQE1 exams in November 2021, 53% of students passed. Whilst there was no notable difference in respect of the pass rate between men and women, there was a large discrepancy between white candidates, 65% of whom passed, and those from other ethnic groups, where the pass rate was 44%.

Anna Bradley, Chair of the SRA Board stated:

“We anticipated that we would again see the troubling difference in performance for candidates from Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups that has been a longstanding and widespread feature in examinations in the legal and other sectors. We know the reasons will be complex and, as well as ongoing review and analysis, we have appointed Exeter University to carry out in-depth research to better understand the factors driving the attainment gap for these groups in professional assessments, so that we can do everything we can to address the issues.”

Clearly, there is still work to do, but recognising the issue and taking steps to begin engaging with it is an encouraging start.

At Kingsley Napley, diversity and inclusion is a central plank of our business plan. We have objectives across the board to increase and retain our diverse talent pipeline. As such we have been reviewing our own processes in terms of training, and we have made some changes, including increasing the number of trainees in each intake, seeking to engage with a wider audience to advertise our career opportunities (such as using diverse job boards) and removing our minimum grade requirement. As to the latter, this reflects our drive to increase the diversity of our trainee pool, but also aligns with our practices, as we review all applications regardless of grades achieved.

Whilst it is up to the SRA to provide a qualification pathway which encourages diversity and inclusion, it is up to law firms to work within that pathway to maximise the benefits. So, how are we approaching it at Kingsley Napley, and how has that changed in light of the SQE so far?

1. Improving our support to trainees to reduce barriers to taking up training contracts. Despite being much more flexible than the LPC, giving yourself the best chance of passing the SQE assessments is still a demanding endeavour. We have increased our sponsorship offering and financial support in light of the cost of living crisis and to ensure we are remaining competitive within the legal market.
2. Being flexible in our approach to previous qualifications. The SRA has allowed for a generous transition timeline which runs until 2032, recognising the fact that many people have sunk time and money into progressing along the previous qualification approach. We assess each application on its individual merits and look at the best path of qualification for the individual, rather than one size fits all, to ensure that none of that investment is wasted. We currently have future trainees who are following the LPC route and others who are enrolling onto the SQE.
3. Improving and expanding our work to attract a more diverse range of applications. This includes: removing our academic entry requirements at degree and A level, overhauling our work experience programme, running virtual open days and increasing our use of diverse job boards (including partnering with Diverse Jobs Matter) which are all aimed at making training at Kingsley Napley a visible option to the widest range of people.

We are proud and excited to announce that we have partnered with the University of Law to deliver our SQE programme. Not only will they work closely with our trainees to ensure they are prepared for the SQE assessments, but they will also deliver our SQE plus programme that will be designed with input from Kingsley Napley. The SQE plus programme will ensure the trainees have the additional knowledge to thrive as a lawyer at Kingsley Napley.

The SQE has had a predictably challenging start to life, as would have been the case with any new qualification approach after nearly 30 years of LPC route. What matters now is that the SRA continue to improve the SQE so it fulfils the promises made. It needs to ensure that law firms use the new framework to create accessible routes into the profession which work for aspiring lawyers as well as the firms themselves.

For more information on Kingsley Napley’s trainee programme, please visit our website. For those who are still deciding if a career in law is for you, we also have a comprehensive work experience scheme.

Further information

If you have any questions regarding this blog, please contact Shannett Thompson, Emily Fortune or Tim Haggett.

About the authors

Shannett Thompson is a Partner in the Regulatory Team and is the firm's Training Principal. She has trained in the NHS and commenced her career exclusively defending doctors. She provides regulatory advice predominantly in the health and social care and education sectors.

Emily is a HR manager at Kingsley Napley. As part of her role she looks after the firm's trainee programme, ensuring the trainees receive the right support to excel as a trainee and prepare them for a successful career once qualified.

Tim Haggett is the Senior Talent and Development Manager at Kingsley Napley. He leads the firm's talent function, ensuring the firm and individuals have the right development and support.