SQE - general discussion

[Jessica Booker]

Hi @Jessica Booker

Hope you are well, I had a few questions I was hoping to get your feedback upon.

I am currently enrolled in in January intake of the LPC (Part-Time) but due to familial issues I have the option to withdraw from the course. My initial thinking was to secure a TC whilst finishing the LPC and move form there but the SQE's introduction is making it tricky for me to come to a conclusion on what to do due to its uncertainty and also being so new which does not fill me with confidence

I understand that by the 2024-25 intake, most Law firms will be integrating the SQE and leave the LPC route. Would it be beneficial for me to withdraw and just hunt for a TC with the aim to secure one within 2024 intake so I can avoid the SQE or just persevere through circumstances, complete the LPC and attempt to secure the TC (harder now as I am working FT).

Doing the LPC now, not getting a TC by 2024 will most likely result in the firm I get a TC from requiring me to do SQE2 + potential QWE if my current experience does not fully count. What I found off-putting is to go through the LPC to then potentially still be liable to do the SQE regardless if the firm pays or not. Hence, I am tempted to take the gamble to withdraw from the LPC, fully hunt down a TC by next summer and just try and meet the criteria to still do this through the LPC route instead of the SQE route, which is a big gamble of course.

I understand this is a decision I can only take but a part of me wants to withdraw and focus on getting the TC before 2024 intake closes but if it does not pay off, I can be potentially into 2023 with no LPC, no TC and liable to do the SQE, which I don't feel confident in (at the moment).

The other part of me thinks finishing the LPC would be beneficial as I am comfortable in the course, can't make many but hope that I can secure one before the PT LPC finishes with a view to get into TC straight off the LPC qualification.

I am very torn due to the gamble I am inclined to take but also because I don't want to look back with no TC and regret not finishing the LPC and having to do the SQE through my own funding. Though, the idea to devote 25-30hrs a week in TC apps alone and a view to secure one before summer 2023 is tempting me to challenge myself and gamble my fate.

A few facts about me:
- Law grad;
- Currently a paralegal (FT) for a regional firm with another 2 years previously;
- 3 months into LPC course.

Apologies for this long essay, just wanted to provide as much info as possible. Thanks!

Personally I’d continue with the LPC unless you are getting a refund on your course.

 

[Rizwan]

Personally I’d continue with the LPC unless you are getting a refund on your course.

Thanks @Jessica Booker

I will get a refund if I am able to exit by next Wednesday, the only thing I will not get the money for is the deposit (books + induction I think) which I don’t mind.

In light of this would you change your view or still recommend to go down the LPC route.

Thank you

 

[Jessica Booker]

Thanks @Jessica Booker

I will get a refund if I am able to exit by next Wednesday, the only thing I will not get the money for is the deposit (books + induction I think) which I don’t mind.

In light of this would you change your view or still recommend to go down the LPC route.

Thank you

Maybe withdraw then and then work out whether to move to the SQE prep course or continue with the LPC at a later date.

 

[Rizwan]

Maybe withdraw then and then work out whether to move to the SQE prep course or continue with the LPC at a later date.

When you say later date, what do you mean exactly.

Firms moving to SQE from the next cycle is quite an indication that LPC might be phased out unless LPC graduates are applying for TCs (in which case they’d have to do SQE2) or could I be wrong?

Another concern of mine was this; could it be that firms could allow LPC students to not even go through SQE2 or is it for definite that LPC students later earning a TC from a SQE-adopted firm will 100% have to do the SQE2 as a minimum.

Only thing that could change my decision is if maybe in the future and during the SQE review process, SRA/firms decide that students who have completed LPC before a certain date (2021 or 22) do not need to attempt any part of the SQE and can go through TC route.

Just a bit wary that not as many as we think will adopt SQE and that LPC could still be relevant for 2024 intake and beyond but only apply to those who have completed the LPC. Anyone non-LPC must do the SQE. Can this be the case or is it a fruit of my overthinking..

Thanks

 

[Jessica Booker]

When you say later date, what do you mean exactly.

Firms moving to SQE from the next cycle is quite an indication that LPC might be phased out unless LPC graduates are applying for TCs (in which case they’d have to do SQE2) or could I be wrong?

Another concern of mine was this; could it be that firms could allow LPC students to not even go through SQE2 or is it for definite that LPC students later earning a TC from a SQE-adopted firm will 100% have to do the SQE2 as a minimum.

Only thing that could change my decision is if maybe in the future and during the SQE review process, SRA/firms decide that students who have completed LPC before a certain date (2021 or 22) do not need to attempt any part of the SQE and can go through TC route.

Just a bit wary that not as many as we think will adopt SQE and that LPC could still be relevant for 2024 intake and beyond but only apply to those who have completed the LPC. Anyone non-LPC must do the SQE. Can this be the case or is it a fruit of my overthinking..

Thanks

But that is exactly my point. If you can withdraw from this course with no/little cost, why not wait until you know which firm you will be working for until deciding whether to do the SQE or LPC based on that firm’s preferences.

What is the rush in signing back up to either course?

 

[Rizwan]

But that is exactly my point. If you can withdraw from this course with no/little cost, why not wait until you know which firm you will be working for until deciding whether to do the SQE or LPC based on that firm’s preferences.

What is the rush in signing back up to either course?

I guess the main concern is what if down the line, as part of refining the SQE process they introduce a regulation where LPC students whom have completed the course are completely exempt from the SQE. By withdrawing from the course I will also be forfeiting the PG fund for which I have been accepted.

Due to my circumstances they will not charge me for it but I will not be able to apply for another grant should I wish to go back to the LPC. The only route moving on will be self-funded course (LPC or SQE should i not get a TC).

Another concern is me withdrawing due to uncertainty + trying to secure a TC. However, what if less firms than what is predicted actually adopt the SQE from the get-go and LPC is still relevant going into 2025/‘26/‘27 intake. I guess at that point the worst worst case scenario is me having to repeat the first two months of the LPC vs just skipping this part as I would have already had the LPC (from studying it now).

The rush is that I don’t want to be doing the SQE if it is not through a firm not because of the costs, more because firms would have their own prep course + other things like this which would help with the overall learning and doing well in it. I guess this can be mitigated by not doing any SQE/LPC until a TC is secured, however long that may take?

 

[Jessica Booker]

I guess the main concern is what if down the line, as part of refining the SQE process they introduce a regulation where LPC students whom have completed the course are completely exempt from the SQE. By withdrawing from the course I will also be forfeiting the PG fund for which I have been accepted.

Due to my circumstances they will not charge me for it but I will not be able to apply for another grant should I wish to go back to the LPC. The only route moving on will be self-funded course (LPC or SQE should i not get a TC).

Another concern is me withdrawing due to uncertainty + trying to secure a TC. However, what if less firms than what is predicted actually adopt the SQE from the get-go and LPC is still relevant going into 2025/‘26/‘27 intake. I guess at that point the worst worst case scenario is me having to repeat the first two months of the LPC vs just skipping this part as I would have already had the LPC (from studying it now).

The rush is that I don’t want to be doing the SQE if it is not through a firm not because of the costs, more because firms would have their own prep course + other things like this which would help with the overall learning and doing well in it. I guess this can be mitigated by not doing any SQE/LPC until a TC is secured, however long that may take?

LPC students won’t be completely exempt from the SQE. They will only be exempt from SQE 1.

Many law firms who recruit non lawyers will have to move to the SQE by 2024 as their talent pipeline will dry up, where non-law grads can only do the SQE after December of this year.

If you have got to think about funding, that is another issue (and again, why I don’t feel qualified to give you advice on this). But I just don’t personally see the rush to make a decision on whether it is the LPC or the SQE if you are withdrawing - that clearly doesn’t matter either way as the decision could be made at a much later date.

If this is a decision about whether to withdraw or not, unfortunately I cannot advise as it’s going to be down to your very individual circumstances.

 

[Willbur]

I am starting to create some SQE content given next cycle we will see a lot of firms convert to SQE opportunities.

Please feel free to post any queries/concerns/questions in here - I might not have an answer straight away but it may help me build out some of the content we are planning.

Thanks in advance!

Hi Jessica,

You a fabulous and patient source of information, so I hope you don't mind being fabulous and patient one more time on the whole GDL v SQE conundrum.

I was gearing up to start a GDL course part-time from Sept 2021 - the last year it will be possible to do so as a route to solicitor qualification, as has been well documented on these threads - then LPC full time and then (hopefully) training contract - i.e. the 'traditional route'. All of which would take me a tidy five years. Why part-time GDL? Family circs. pure and simple, plus I am leaving a career of 15 years in a different industry and want to gain some relevant legal experience round the edges while I study. I have two small children so the idea of doing the GDL full time + any volunteering + giving time to the family would be to exhausting.

Originally I had found the GDL route attractive because I hadn't entirely made up my mind between Solicitor and Barrister and wanted some headspace to explore aspects of volunteer work that would give me a better sense of which direction to take, which areas of law I find most engaging etc. I see now that I probably need to 'pick a lane' before September rolls around. The issues I have are these:

- I am worried that doing the GDL part-time will mean that by the time I finish the LPC (2024) firms will have fully adapted their training offers and moved on to a new model that, at worst, might even require me to do some SQE exams on top of GDL and LPC which would be a horrendous waste of time and money, not to mention a duplication of study areas.
- I am attracted to the GDL and LPC because they sound more robust and trusted and I think I might benefit from a more holistic introduction to legal learning


However:

- The areas of law I am most drawn to - at least at this stage - are criminal and public (apologies, I know this is the TCLA). In most cases, firms specialising in these areas don't offer training contracts of the two-years-in-advance-we'll-cover-your-fees variety, mainly because they can't afford to. Often, folk will go in as paralegals and then get taken on as trainees if they impress. I am now wondering if the SQE model might be a genuinely good fit for these kinds of practice. BUT...currently firms offering paralegal work require a GDL & LPC under the belt. This will HAVE to change from next year so, effectively, a candidate could apply to be a paralegal MUCH earlier than they would have historically, potentially after completing SQE1 which might only take 6 months. The whole process might be concluded in around 3 years, rather than 5, and for less money.

- There are some firms in the areas I mention above who do offer training contracts but, for SQE, these appear not to be coming in until 2023 at the earliest even though you can start prepping for SQE now and, in theory dive into Qualifying work experience. if I start preparing for the SQE exams from September 2021 I then risk a period of limbo whereby I will have passed through at least the SQE1 assessment phase (2022) but it will be too early to start a training contract. In theory, I could use that time to accumulate some Qualifying Work Experience (QWE) to count towards the overall qualification and while that would be great for my general experience but I am assuming that bigger firms are likely to design their own programmes to provide the two years of QWE and that therefore any experience I had accumulated 'outside' wouldn't necessarily 'count' or even expedite the process in the ways the SRA is hoping will be transformative.

- I have written to many firms in this area and they are finding it hard to give full answers to these questions. Many haven't updated their Careers pages to account for the fact that, as of 2022, there will be lots of people studying for the SQE and trying to get simultaneous work experience. So, really, it's all well and good for firms to be thinking from 2023/4 onwards but actually the whole point about the SQE is that aspiring solicitors are going to be starting to put feelers out for Qualifying Work Experience from 2022. In my case, I could take an SQE prep course on a part-time basis while I try to get in with a criminal defense or public law firm but I don't want to hang around twiddling my thumbs if I can get the SQE exams done in a year or less.

I know the SQE is already coming in for a lot of flack and I understand why but I do think the pockets of the legal profession that don't tend to operate in such a structured way when it comes to training contracts might be better to accommodate its more piecemeal nature. What's your take?

Many thanks!

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hi Jessica,

You a fabulous and patient source of information, so I hope you don't mind being fabulous and patient one more time on the whole GDL v SQE conundrum.

I was gearing up to start a GDL course part-time from Sept 2021 - the last year it will be possible to do so as a route to solicitor qualification, as has been well documented on these threads - then LPC full time and then (hopefully) training contract - i.e. the 'traditional route'. All of which would take me a tidy five years. Why part-time GDL? Family circs. pure and simple, plus I am leaving a career of 15 years in a different industry and want to gain some relevant legal experience round the edges while I study. I have two small children so the idea of doing the GDL full time + any volunteering + giving time to the family would be to exhausting.

Originally I had found the GDL route attractive because I hadn't entirely made up my mind between Solicitor and Barrister and wanted some headspace to explore aspects of volunteer work that would give me a better sense of which direction to take, which areas of law I find most engaging etc. I see now that I probably need to 'pick a lane' before September rolls around. The issues I have are these:

- I am worried that doing the GDL part-time will mean that by the time I finish the LPC (2024) firms will have fully adapted their training offers and moved on to a new model that, at worst, might even require me to do some SQE exams on top of GDL and LPC which would be a horrendous waste of time and money, not to mention a duplication of study areas.
- I am attracted to the GDL and LPC because they sound more robust and trusted and I think I might benefit from a more holistic introduction to legal learning


However:

- The areas of law I am most drawn to - at least at this stage - are criminal and public (apologies, I know this is the TCLA). In most cases, firms specialising in these areas don't offer training contracts of the two-years-in-advance-we'll-cover-your-fees variety, mainly because they can't afford to. Often, folk will go in as paralegals and then get taken on as trainees if they impress. I am now wondering if the SQE model might be a genuinely good fit for these kinds of practice. BUT...currently firms offering paralegal work require a GDL & LPC under the belt. This will HAVE to change from next year so, effectively, a candidate could apply to be a paralegal MUCH earlier than they would have historically, potentially after completing SQE1 which might only take 6 months. The whole process might be concluded in around 3 years, rather than 5, and for less money.

- There are some firms in the areas I mention above who do offer training contracts but, for SQE, these appear not to be coming in until 2023 at the earliest even though you can start prepping for SQE now and, in theory dive into Qualifying work experience. if I start preparing for the SQE exams from September 2021 I then risk a period of limbo whereby I will have passed through at least the SQE1 assessment phase (2022) but it will be too early to start a training contract. In theory, I could use that time to accumulate some Qualifying Work Experience (QWE) to count towards the overall qualification and while that would be great for my general experience but I am assuming that bigger firms are likely to design their own programmes to provide the two years of QWE and that therefore any experience I had accumulated 'outside' wouldn't necessarily 'count' or even expedite the process in the ways the SRA is hoping will be transformative.

- I have written to many firms in this area and they are finding it hard to give full answers to these questions. Many haven't updated their Careers pages to account for the fact that, as of 2022, there will be lots of people studying for the SQE and trying to get simultaneous work experience. So, really, it's all well and good for firms to be thinking from 2023/4 onwards but actually the whole point about the SQE is that aspiring solicitors are going to be starting to put feelers out for Qualifying Work Experience from 2022. In my case, I could take an SQE prep course on a part-time basis while I try to get in with a criminal defense or public law firm but I don't want to hang around twiddling my thumbs if I can get the SQE exams done in a year or less.

I know the SQE is already coming in for a lot of flack and I understand why but I do think the pockets of the legal profession that don't tend to operate in such a structured way when it comes to training contracts might be better to accommodate its more piecemeal nature. What's your take?

Many thanks!

I don’t think you need to pick a lane. You could still do the GDL and on a part time basis and just ensure it has a good SQE prep option embedded into it.

The GDL on its own doesn’t exempt you from the SQE, but if you did go on to complete the LPC too, then you would be exempt from SQE1, meaning you would only need to do SQE2.

For firms who recruit trainees from paralegals, I suspect they will still want to see a good SQE prep course instead of the GDL/LPC or worse, could expect you to have passed both stages of the SQE before even considering you for a paralegal role.

It’s really hard to know how firms are going to be flexible with this though. Some will take you on pre SQE (even pre SQE1) and allow you to complete the two courses as you work (probably will take 30 months though - look at Kennedys for an example of this), others could take you on between SQE1 and 2. I don’t think it is necessarily too early to start a TC after completing SQE1 though.

What firms deem QWE versus what the SRA deem QWE are too very different things. This is what muddies the water with the new system. There is a risk that people become over qualified but not with the “right” experience. You see this with qualifications like RICS, CFA, ACCA. It becomes difficult to “train” someone who is already technically qualified and usually you can’t bill them out a

Things to remember - sitting for the SQE are going to be pretty infrequent. A SQE prep course may only take six months, but you’ll have to align it with the SQE1 sitting and also hope you pass on first sitting (roughly 60% pass rate expected going by the QLTS model it is based on).

I don’t think there will be lots of people studying for the SQE in 2022 though - I think it won’t really be until 2023 that we see people undertaking the SQE.

My view is firms who haven’t sponsored the GDL/LPC previously will just try to pick up people who have passed SQE 1 and 2, in the same way they expected people to pass the LPC of their own accord.

 

[Willbur]

For firms who recruit trainees from paralegals, I suspect they will still want to see a good SQE prep course instead of the GDL/LPC or worse, could expect you to have passed both stages of the SQE before even considering you for a paralegal role.

Thanks, Jessica, most helpful. In some respects I wouldn't mind the worse case scenario you outline above: doing SQE1 & SQE2 before applying for paralegal work is still likely to be at least one year shorter than the three years on the GDL (part-time)+ LPC route, I think? For instance, one provider has advertised an SQE1 prep course on a part-time basis over 27 weeks (14 weeks full time). The SRA has said that there will be two sittings of each exam per year so assuming an SQE2 course is structured in a similar way to the SQE1 I have described above, it should take less time overall to get those qualifications done and, if you had bagged a TC-style paralegal>training contract or straight up training contract then you'd be studying for SQE2 alongside anyway. Even if you had to wait until after both exams had been sat before embarking on the two years QWE it would still be around four years total, rather than five. However, this assumes (i) that those courses are the only ones that need to be taken for a non-law grad to be a solid enough candidate for a law firm and (ii) that you have a good amount of QWE lined up to go into fairly quickly after you have passed the exam(s).

Finally, is it your understanding the case that the SQE will cover a significant amount of ground that the GDL currently does, albeit tested in a different way? I have read elsewhere that coming at the SQE without much previous grounding might be really tough. Guess it depends on the quality of the prep course....

 

[Jessica Booker]

Thanks, Jessica, most helpful. In some respects I wouldn't mind the worse case scenario you outline above: doing SQE1 & SQE2 before applying for paralegal work is still likely to be at least one year shorter than the three years on the GDL (part-time)+ LPC route, I think? For instance, one provider has advertised an SQE1 prep course on a part-time basis over 27 weeks (14 weeks full time). The SRA has said that there will be two sittings of each exam per year so assuming an SQE2 course is structured in a similar way to the SQE1 I have described above, it should take less time overall to get those qualifications done and, if you had bagged a TC-style paralegal>training contract or straight up training contract then you'd be studying for SQE2 alongside anyway. Even if you had to wait until after both exams had been sat before embarking on the two years QWE it would still be around four years total, rather than five. However, this assumes (i) that those courses are the only ones that need to be taken for a non-law grad to be a solid enough candidate for a law firm and (ii) that you have a good amount of QWE lined up to go into fairly quickly after you have passed the exam(s).

Finally, is it your understanding the case that the SQE will cover a significant amount of ground that the GDL currently does, albeit tested in a different way? I have read elsewhere that coming at the SQE without much previous grounding might be really tough. Guess it depends on the quality of the prep course....

Also depends on you as an exam taker I suspect too.

The SQE1 is more like the GDL knowledge, with SQE2 more like the LPC (viva type assessments rather than factual knowledge). So the GDL might help you with preparing for SQE1 but less likely on SQE2, where you will do more practical based assessments.

 

[Willbur]

Also depends on you as an exam taker I suspect too.

The SQE1 is more like the GDL knowledge, with SQE2 more like the LPC (viva type assessments rather than factual knowledge). So the GDL might help you with preparing for SQE1 but less likely on SQE2, where you will do more practical based assessments.

Yes, fair point! The curious thing is that the front-footed firms (Kennedys, Level etc.) who are already advertising SQE training programme are insisting on a GDL before starting which seems bizarre to me and presumably they will only be able to insist on that for this year before the GDL is done away with?

 

[Jessica Booker]

Yes, fair point! The curious thing is that the front-footed firms (Kennedys, Level etc.) who are already advertising SQE training programme are insisting on a GDL before starting which seems bizarre to me and presumably they will only be able to insist on that for this year before the GDL is done away with?

They are cautious test runs while the assessments are still unknown. It may change in time once they have more reassurance of pass rates of some of the courses (which will be in the public domain) and when there aren't enough people in the market who have done the GDL. If these firms never sponsored the GDL, then it isn't really any different to the existing system.

 

[Willbur]

They are cautious test runs while the assessments are still unknown. It may change in time once they have more reassurance of pass rates of some of the courses (which will be in the public domain) and when there aren't enough people in the market who have done the GDL. If these firms never sponsored the GDL, then it isn't really any different to the existing system.

So, given GDL>PLC is tried and tested there may be advantages to going that route while it's still possible...

 

[Jessica Booker]

So, given GDL>PLC is tried and tested there may be advantages to going that route while it's still possible...

Possible advantages, a lot of disadvantages and risk though.

I think if you are going to a firm where there isn’t an “intake” of trainees, then the LPC route might be better (as it practically offers guaranteed qualification). With talent drying up on the LPC route, those firms who have intakes are likely to move across quicker and just make their trainees convert to the SQE given its greater flexibility and the lack of regulation needed at their end (a lot less work for the firm).

 

[Willbur]

Possible advantages, a lot of disadvantages and risk though.

I think if you are going to a firm where there isn’t an “intake” of trainees, then the LPC route might be better (as it practically offers guaranteed qualification). With talent drying up on the LPC route, those firms who have intakes are likely to move across quicker and just make their trainees convert to the SQE given its greater flexibility and the lack of regulation needed at their end (a lot less work for the firm).

I suppose we have to hope that law firms start to clarify their positions more clearly over the coming months. It seems unreasonable for prospective students to commit to courses in 2021 while there are so many unknowns.

 

[Jessica Booker]

I suppose we have to hope that law firms start to clarify their positions more clearly over the coming months. It seems unreasonable for prospective students to commit to courses in 2021 while there are so many unknowns.

The fact that both routes could run for the next 11 years means that firms in many ways don’t have to decide as such. They could run both.

 

[Willbur]

The fact that both routes could run for the next 11 years means that firms in many ways don’t have to decide as such. They could run both.

Hi Jessica,

I have just seen this on the BSB's website:

• Subject to further detail from the SRA in due course, we intend to allow some equivalence for part-qualified solicitors. For example, we expect that passing the SQE Stage One (which incorporates knowledge of the foundations of legal knowledge subjects) should be sufficient as an equivalent to the academic component of Bar training. This, we think, should aid students in deciding what law programme to attend, meaning that they could postpone decisions on their eventual career intentions.

Obviously this is yet to be confirmed, but do you anticipate that there may be a potential route path for those candidates starting law but undecided between Solicitor and Barrister that is SQE1>BPC?

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hi Jessica,

I have just seen this on the BSB's website:

• Subject to further detail from the SRA in due course, we intend to allow some equivalence for part-qualified solicitors. For example, we expect that passing the SQE Stage One (which incorporates knowledge of the foundations of legal knowledge subjects) should be sufficient as an equivalent to the academic component of Bar training. This, we think, should aid students in deciding what law programme to attend, meaning that they could postpone decisions on their eventual career intentions.

Obviously this is yet to be confirmed, but do you anticipate that there may be a potential route path for those candidates starting law but undecided between Solicitor and Barrister that is SQE1>BPC?

Yes - this has been on the cards for sometime as the Bar have wanted to ensure they are equally accessible and have followed the Legal Education and Training review/SQE developments for sometime.

What is impossible to comment on is whether this will actually happen and if so what kind of exemption it gives you if you did decide to become a barrister, and even then if it is appealing for Chambers for you to have just passed SQE1 or have done that through a more formal training course.

Way too early to tell unfortunately.

 

[Knye]

Hi Jessica


I was just wondering, seeing as I am currently about to start my penultimate year of a 3 year law course, will I be required to sit the SQE or the LPC? I would much prefer the established method of the LPC and the attractiveness of a law firm paying for this definitely helps. If this is correct, would I be starting my training contract in 2024? (First year: 2020/21 Second Year: 2021/22 Final Year: 2022/23 LPC: 2023/24).

Kindest regards