📰 Discussion Point

When the SQE was first announced, it promised to open up the legal profession. By removing LPC’s cost barrier and allowing more flexible routes to qualification, it was seen as a step forward for access and social mobility.This came with a fundamental change in expectations.

The LPC was built to prepare you for your first day as a trainee. The SQE is supposed to judge whether you’re ready to act as a Day One Solicitor. A higher threshold indeed.Fast-forward to 2025, and many firms say SQE grads are less prepared than their LPC-trained peers.

Legal Cheek’s report reveals that drafting and legal research skills are seen as weaker among SQE candidates.Yet another irony is that while the SQE gives you the option of just taking the exams, most candidates end up paying for a prep course as well as the exams. And if you add on the LLM option to qualify for student finance, it ends up being more expensive than the LPC.

So the promised affordability is, for many, an illusion.

I asked 15,000 aspiring lawyers if the SQE is delivering on its promises and whether the introduction of the SQE was a mistake.

Here's what stood out:

🗣️: “How on Earth it takes a computer three months to mark it [the exam] is beyond me.”

🗣️: “More of a hindrance than actual progress in opening up the legal sector.”

🗣️:“Nothing will ever compare to the LPC. Ever.”

🗣️: “The LPC should’ve been left in place for law students / people not already working in the legal sector.”

The last one really stuck with me, and honestly, I think it makes much more sense to offer the SQE as an alternative, not a replacement.

So… where do we go from here?

📩 Don’t miss the next article, event, or opportunity — sign up to Equal Opportunity and get everything straight to your inbox.