‘Give them some leeway’: Lawfluencer urges firms to stand by trainees who fail SQE

Avatar photo

By Legal Cheek on

10

Appeal follows latest exam results


A popular lawfluencer has urged law firms to reconsider before severing ties with future trainees who fail the SQE, highlighting ongoing “glitches” in the new qualification process and urging firms to give students “the benefit of the doubt”.

The appeal, posted to LinkedIn today by medical and cosmetic injury solicitor Chrissie Wolfe, argues that the “hard” exam is meant to replace a training contract, not supplement it, and that requiring students to do both effectively tests their competence twice. “You can afford to give them some leeway,” she writes.

“There are still a number of glitches with various aspects of the process meaning that many students aren’t being taught the proper content for the exams, provided the correct conditions for taking the exams or afforded equal opportunity of passing,” Wolfe continues. “It’s still a new system, give the students the benefit of the doubt”.

The SQE Hub: Your ultimate resource for all things SQE

Wolfe, who regularly shares legal career advice on Instagram and TikTok, emphasises that “humility breeds loyalty and the more you support your candidates, the more they will support you back”.

The lawyer’s post follows a recent Legal Cheek Career Conundrum featuring a student whose training contract offer was revoked after failing SQE1 on the first attempt — despite having mitigating circumstances.

The post sparked plenty of comments, with advice ranging from appealing to the SRA to have the attempt struck out to publicly calling out the firm.

10 Comments

Anonymous

Appreciate this from her, but, didn’t she play a key role in introducing this exam? Was it not obvious this was going to happen?

You made an exam that was 10 times harder than its pre-decessor, testing students on the presumption of 2 years of legal work experience, when most have spent 1 week at a firm on a vac scheme. Had they been born 2 years earlier, all would be easy on thee LPC and they’d walk in into the job. Unfair on these students to be the ‘guinea pigs.’

Anon

“[…]glitches with various aspects of the process meaning that many students aren’t being taught the proper content for the exams”

Is that a “glitch”? Or is it because the SRA:

(a) hasn’t released any representative past papers so course providers are operating in the dark; and

(b) has failed to collate reliable pass rates from course providers, despite promising to do so ages ago, meaning that students can’t adequately assess the quality of instruction?

But I guess hollow platitudes will get the LinkedIn likes.

realist

Coupled with the strict NDA on discussing any of the content of the exam and weak specification detail you’d almost think the SRA didn’t want anyone to find out what content was actually covered by the exam…

Matthew

> argues that the “hard” exam is meant to replace a training contract, not supplement it,

Total nonsense. Previously you had LPC + GDL + 2 years’ training contract, now you have SQE + 2 years’ QE.

The SQE has replaced two sets of exams, it hasn’t replaced the training contract in the slightest and wasn’t intended to.

Anonymous

SQE = GDL + LPC is almost unheard of in practice (regardless of whether it’s technically possible) – anecdotally, the vast majority of people sitting the SQE (at least on taught law school courses) are still doing the GDL first if coming from a non-law degree

Yes exactly

The need to learn the entire PGDL curriculum did not go away because the SRA doesn’t demand direct proof of having done the PGDL

Me

All these acronyms are amusing. The only one I notice on a CV is BCL.

Anon

Most training contract offers require an undergrad law degree + SQE or PGDL +SQE. I haven’t come across a single firm in London not asking for an undergrad or PGDL.

Rupert

Honestly, with the support trainees receive at top firms, failing the SQE is plainly unacceptable and it totally warrants immediate termination of the TCs.

Yes exactly

As grateful as we are the support is that they pay for the prep course which still has a 25% fail rate (and that rate would be a lot higher if you didn’t count the sponsored students)

Join the conversation

Related Stories