National Junior Lawyers Division report highlights concerns over cost, exam access, reasonable adjustments and mental health impacts on candidates
Nearly 80% of candidates believe the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) is not fit for purpose, according to a major survey that raises wide-ranging concerns about cost, accessibility, assessment and wellbeing.
The report by the National Junior Lawyers Division (NJLD), based on 476 responses, found that 79.78% of candidates do not consider the SQE fit for purpose, while 82.23% said it does not represent good value for money. Almost 44% reported total costs exceeding £10,000, with more than three-quarters spending over £5,000 overall.
The findings highlight significant issues with the assessment process. Over half of respondents (53.7%) experienced difficulties booking exams, citing long queues, limited test centre capacity and technical failures. Nearly half (48%) also reported problems during the assessments themselves, including IT issues and inadequate facilities.
Concerns were also raised about reasonable adjustments. Of those who required them, 50% said they were not provided adequately, pointing to inconsistency and a lack of clarity in the process.
The cost of the SQE and its associated courses emerged as a central theme. A majority of candidates said preparatory courses did not represent value for money, while many described the overall financial burden as excessive, particularly given the additional cost of resits and the lack of detailed feedback on performance.
The survey found that 77.9% of candidates worked alongside their studies, often without sufficient employer support. Only 14.7% said their employer was fully supportive of the SQE route, while 62.85% reported limited or no support. Over half also said they received only partial or no flexibility for study and exam leave.
Candidates also reported mixed experiences with qualifying work experience (QWE), with most receiving adequate opportunities but a notable minority facing difficulties in both access and sign-off.
The impact on mental health and wellbeing was described as particularly concerning. Respondents gave an average score of 20.57 out of 100, with a median of 17, and 76.7% scoring 30 or below. Many described stress, exhaustion and financial pressure, with some reporting isolation and anxiety caused by the volume of study and uncertainty of outcomes.
Issues were also identified in the resit and appeals process. Among those affected, 43.9% rated the process negatively, compared with just 18.3% positively, with criticism focused on rising resit fees, the three-attempt limit and a lack of transparency.
The report further points to concerns about the structure of the SQE itself, with candidates calling for a narrower syllabus, greater alignment with day-one practice, access to past papers and more meaningful feedback on results.
However, Harry Clark, chair of the NJLD, stressed that the organisation is not calling for the SQE to be scrapped. Instead, he said the focus should be on urgent reforms, including a review of the reasonable adjustments process, improved feedback on failed assessments, and greater transparency to help candidates choose preparatory course providers.
The NJLD said it wants to work constructively with the Solicitors Regulation Authority to drive change, starting with improving transparency for candidates navigating the qualification process.
It warned that the combination of high costs, limited transparency, inconsistent support and negative wellbeing impacts risks deterring entrants and undermining diversity in the profession, adding that prospective lawyers should carefully weigh these factors before committing to the SQE route.