Consultation questions

The Society of Legal Scholars is a learned society whose members teach law in a University
or similar institution or who are otherwise engaged in legal scholarship. Founded in 1909,
and with just under 3,000 members, it is the oldest as well as the largest learned society in the
field. The great majority of members of the Society are legal academics in Universities,
although members of the senior judiciary and members of the legal professions also
participate regularly in its work. The Society's membership is drawn from all jurisdictions in
the British Isles and also includes affiliated members typically working in other common law
systems. The Society is the principal representative body for legal academics in the UK as
well as one of the larger learned societies in arts, humanities and social science.
Please state your level of agreement with each proposal on a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 5
(strongly disagree)
Question 1
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed SQE is a robust and effective
measure of competence?
5. The whole process has been fundamentally flawed.

It ignores the evidence in the Legal Education and Training Review, commissioned by
amongst others the SRA, which said that most people are broadly happy with the
current system of legal education and training the SRA and want only limited reforms.

Despite having several years to do so the SRA has failed to provide robust evidence as
to inconsistency of standards in the present system.

There is still no evidence that a new system of assessment for SQE1 that is mainly
based on a large number of computer-marked questions, which have to be answered
very quickly, can show that people have the same depth of legal knowledge as is
demonstrated by the present QLD/DL system.

It does not show how the SQE1 provider will be regulated or how the cramming
colleges that will train people to take the SQE1 will be regulated.

It ignores the fact that a two tier system will be created with there being a small
number of SQE-only solicitors whose existence will damage the reputation of all
solicitors.

The essential question is to what extent can a consumer or employer have confidence in a
solicitor whose legal knowledge and skills have only been assessed by the SQE. Five of the
six knowledge assessments for the SQE1 will be three hours long and consist of 120
questions with one being two hours long with 80 questions. Given this consumers and
employers can, at best, assume only that their solicitors knowledge is very superficial.
Despite these new computer marked questions being at the heart of the changes to
qualification and despite the fact that we are now several years into the consultation exercise
the SRA has still not produced examples of the kinds of questions and answers it has in
mind. The level at which the questions will be put is opaque. If, as the consultation

document says, they are not comparable to academic standards what standards are they
comparable to?
Law is a discursive subject where, on occasion, solicitors are expected to provide appropriate
arguments for their clients circumstances in situations where the law is unclear. There is no
evidence that the suggested assessment regime will demonstrate that SQE candidates are
capable of doing this. The fact that computer marked questions have previously been used in
relation to disciplines such as medicine does not offer any reason for thinking they will work
as the major vehicle for testing knowledge and understanding in relation to qualification as a
solicitor. The fact that these forms of assessment regimes have been used in assessing
professional legal qualifications in other circumstances, where candidates are usually law
graduates, is equally irrelevant since not all candidates for the SQE will be law graduates or
indeed graduates at all. It cannot be said that a future solicitor who is merely SQE accredited
will have the same depth of knowledge of law as a solicitor who has graduated with a degree
in law. This risks creating a two-tier occupation with solicitors who will be viewed as
technicians on the one hand and those who will be regarded as professionals on the other.
How will consumers know which kind of solicitor they are employing?
There is no indication of how the work of the single provider of assessment in the new
system will be regulated. There is no indication of how the panel of experts that the SRA
proposes to appoint in relation to assessment will be selected and trained.
If the SRAs proposals are implemented it is inevitable that cramming colleges teaching
students how to pass the SQE will be set up. (They already exist for the QLTS.) Since they
will be unregulated they will be of varying quality. Commercial exigencies mean that none
are likely to provide teaching which is comparable in quality with that found in QLD and
LPC providers. In time some of the new colleges will prove to be ineffective at training for
the SQE. However their market failure will be at the expense of the time and money of
students that they have taken in.
The SRA in setting out a new training regime are proceeding on the basis of faith rather than
evidence and the risk for consumers, employers and students is enormous.
The structure and content proposed for SQE1 and SQE 2 might be seen as a plausible
centralised replacement for the LPC. It deals with the supposed problem of variable standards
among LPC providers. No detailed evidence is provided in the Consultation Paper to support
the claims as to that variability and no evidence is provided whatsoever to link problems for
consumers to this or indeed any aspect of the current arrangements for education and training.
However, given that centralised assessment at this stage has been adopted by the Bar
Standards Board and in many overseas jurisdictions, it cannot be argued that adoption of
centralised arrangements is wrong in principle. The major flaw is that the proposed
arrangements do not provide a robust and effective measure of competence as regards
knowledge and understanding of the current foundation subjects, which remain part of the
areas of required knowledge. The draft Assessment Framework reveals that the proportion of
the SQE1 assessments directed to knowledge of the substantive content of the foundation
subjects is relatively small. That is in no way comparable to the assessment of those subjects
in a QLD or GDL offered by providers subject to overview by the QAA/HEFCE. It means in
effect that the profession will become one where a person will be able to qualify as a
practitioner without having studied at degree level and been assessed at that level on the core
building blocks of the knowledge needed for that profession. The Bar, which is unlikely to

make the same mistake, will truly be able to say that barristers are better educated in the law
than solicitors. Most jurisdictions around the world require possession of a law degree as a
complement to a centralised assessment. There are real risks that the qualification of solicitor
will be devalued in international perception. This contradicts the statement at para 26 in the
Consultation paper that It is vital that we have a qualification that justifies the high
reputation of solicitors of England and Wales around the world. A further flaw is that while
the centralised assessment should ensure equivalence of standards, it has not been
demonstrated that the methods of assessment proposed for use in SQE 1 (largely MCQs) to
assess the areas of knowledge and understanding of the law currently assessed at the LPC
stage, are at least the equivalent of the variety of methods of assessment at present adopted by
LPC providers.
We have the following comments on statements in the Consultation Paper that relate to this
question:
Centralised Assessments
Para 22: The introduction of a centralised assessment would bring us into line with other
international jurisdictions such as New York, California, Germany, France and India. This
may be true as to the narrow matter of the use of a centralised assessment but is misleading as
to the overall position given the general requirements in the clear majority of jurisdictions as
to possession of a law degree or the equivalent.
The Current System
Para 28: We cannot know from the current system of legal education that all aspiring
solicitors are assessed to a consistent standard and achieve the same outcomes. There are
about 110 universities involved in assessing students through Qualifying Law Degrees
(QLD), Exempting Law Degrees (ELD),ii the CPE and the LPC. These universities both
teach their students and assess them through examinations which the universities set, mark
and moderate. With this number of providers, we cannot be sure that all new solicitors are
meeting, on a consistent basis, the levels of knowledge and skills that consumers expect of the
profession In our view, sufficient assurance on this is provided by the introduction of a
centralised assessment at the SQE stage to complement possession of a QLD/GDL. There is
not the slightest evidence that the current arrangements for assessment of the academic stage
have caused problems for consumers.
The Separation of Procedural and Substantive Law
Para 31: The current tri-partite structure of legal education, divided into academic,
professional and work-based stages, means students often learn substantive and procedural
law separately. This is not surprising. Most areas of law, whether substantive or procedural,
have many difficulties and uncertainties. There is a limit to how much a student can be
expected to study and take in at any one time. There is no room in, say, a 20 or 30 credit
module on Contract, to incorporate extensive coverage of civil procedure as well, without
serious dumbing-down. The real point is how steps can be taken to ensure that sufficient
knowledge of substantive law is carried into the study of procedure. They may not be
adequately assessed on the core professional competence of applying the legal principles
they have learned in the academic stage of training to practical transactions or to solving
clients problems. What is important here is evidence that it is not happening (not may not

be happening) within current LPC provision. The Consultation Paper gives no evidence on
this point.
Content standards relate to substantive, not procedural, law: teaches substantive law in
procedural vacuum The first proposition is usually true, as procedural law is covered by the
LPC. It is unlikely that many law schools provide as part of a QLD programme the equivalent
of the civil and criminal litigation courses that are part of the LPC. To imply that the absence
of such detailed courses as part of a typical LLB programme means that substantive law is
taught in a procedural vacuum (which suggests that law students in University law schools
have no understanding of procedure at all) is a non sequitur for which no evidence is
provided.
Cost
Para 32: It is no longer acceptable or fair for us to force all CPE graduates, and law
graduates who do not qualify through ELDs, to take the LPC - an additional course on top of
a degree - at a cost of up to 15,000 (with living expenses on top) when there are other ways
in which they could acquire the professional skills and knowledge currently taught on the
LPC. This implies that students will be able to acquire the professional skills and knowledge
currently taught on the LPC much more cheaply through one or more other routes, but fails to
indicate what they might be. It is possible that some providers may use an undergraduate law
degree to deliver the education and training needed for SQE 1 (or even SQE1 and 2). It is
very unlikely that leading law schools will choose to do that. It is difficult to predict how
many law schools will. Apart from this possibility it is very difficult to see that the
preparation for assessments on procedure and the non-foundation subject required knowledge
and the relatively intensive education and training needed to prepare a student for skills
assessments can delivered at significantly less cost than for a current LPC course. This may
explain why We see no evidence of downward competitive pressures on price: para 33.
Academic Standards
Diagram before para 36: This includes the following comments on the academic stage (and
therefore both QLDs and GDLs):
No clear performance standard In so far as there is not one national LLB examination this
is true. But each HEI provider has to have clear performance standards. All providers have
systems for external examiners.
Content
Do not teach competences in Competence Statement It is true that LLB degrees do not teach
all the competences in the Competence Statement. To imply that they teach none is absurd.
See the Law Subject Benchmark (http://www.qaa.ac.uk/publications/information-andguidance/publication?PubID=2966#.WHJNMH1EO88).
Liberal law degrees, designed to deliver requirements of QAA subject benchmarking
statement and FHEQ requirements True, but they also have to deliver the requirements of the
Joint Statement to cover foundation subjects that, according to a widespread consensus, all
lawyers need. The omission of this makes this comment seriously misleading to readers of
the Consultation Paper who are not familiar with the details of QLDs and GDLS.

Minimal content standard specified in the Joint Statement If there were evidence that this
itself caused a problem then it could of course be revisited. We are not aware of any such
evidence.
Assessment practices have fallen behind best practices in standard setting No evidence is
provided to support this general criticism of HEI providers.
Consumer Experience
Para 38: Although establishing a direct causal link between the current training system and
poor consumer experiences is difficult, we do believe that there is a case to be made that it
could be improved to the benefit of the users of legal services. The first part of this
proposition implies that there is some such evidence. If there is it should be given. Otherwise
the proposition should have been: Although there is no evidence establishing a direct causal
link between the current training system and poor consumer experiences, we do believe that
there is a case to be made that it could be improved to the benefit of the users of legal
services. Regulation simply based on the beliefs of the regulator that have not been
evidenced is not acceptable.
Question 2a
To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposals for qualifying legal work
experience?
2. The introduction of greater flexibility is sensible and supported.
Question 2b
What length of time do you think would be the most appropriate minimum requirement for
workplace experience?
We do not have a view on this point.
Question 3
To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposals for the regulation of preparatory
training for the SQE?
5. All the pathways to qualification should require possession of a QLD or GDL or the
equivalent (eg via the apprenticeship route).
Question 4
To what extent do you agree or disagree that our proposed model is a suitable test of the
requirements needed to become a solicitor?
4. The lack of a QLD or GDL is a fatal flaw. The overreliance on MCQs is a further flaw. The
requirements as to work experience are a step forward.
Question 5

To what extent do you agree or disagree that we should offer any exemptions from the SQE
stage 1 or 2?
3 The current content of many and perhaps all law degrees does cover parts of SQE1 in a
more detailed and regulated way than would be true in the SQE1 assessment. However any
exemptions at all would mean that the SRA had accepted that the whole new approach was
unnecessary.

Question 6
To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposed transitional arrangements?
1 We agree with these proposals.
Question 7
Do you foresee any positive or negative EDI impacts arising from our proposals?
5 The impacts will be negative. Implementation of the proposed arrangements will introduce
a great deal of uncertainty as to what education and training students will need to be
employable, as distinct from to be eligible for the award of the qualification of solicitor.
Serious firms will require trainees to have at least the equivalent of the GDL and not just
preparation for the SQE. SQE1 will be regarded as involving dumbing down and crammer
courses. Firms may require applicants for traineeship with them to have studied particular
subjects in a Law degree. The consequent fragmentation is to be contrasted with the certainty
on this point provided by the Joint Statement. Firms may require trainees to undergo some
professional training before starting a traineeship. All this uncertainty will operate to the
advantage of applicants from better-off backgrounds, with access to relevant networking, who
will be in a better position to navigate these uncertain waters.
While in theory a cheaper and faster route to qualification may be available, there is a serious
risk that people who qualify by that route will be less employable than those who have a law
degree/GDL as well. This creation of a de facto two-tier structure is likely to operate to the
disadvantage of the less well-off. There is also a need for clear regulatory structures for
providers of course leading to the proposed SQA and the provider of the SQA itself.