Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman slams ‘snowflake’ aspiring lawyers over SQE petition

Former Home Secretary, Suella Braverman never had to sit these exam. Students had every right to call for a reform - the exam IS disproportionately challenging!

I’ve always been vocal about this — my students know my opinion well. The SQE2 is not representative of the skills, knowledge, or approach expected of a day one solicitor. I would argue it is more of a 1-2 PQE, and even then it would be impossible to maintain that knowledge at all different legal disciplines.

I say this not as an outsider, but as someone who has been in legal education for years, participated in the SQE pilot exams, and watched the process unfold from the moment companies tendered to administer it. I sat the very first actual SQE2 in the country. I’ve seen it evolve — and it has only become more difficult, more expensive, and less accessible.

Even with “reasonable adjustments,” the exam is still not properly accessible for candidates with disabilities. There are no published past papers. Most students have little to no real insight into its complexity until they’re already in the exam room. And despite rising costs, the technology hasn’t kept pace — candidates continue to face technical failures mid-assessment.

I’ve sat the notoriously difficult New York Bar Exam, and I can say — without hesitation — that it was easier than the SQE2.

And most importantly, the SQE2 bears little resemblance to how we actually practise law. In real life, we use templates, we check authorities, and we collaborate. If we “practised” the way the SQE2 demands, we wouldn’t last on the roll for long. The exam sets their own rules you must play by.

It’s time to have an honest, public conversation about what the SQE2 really is, who it serves, and whether it truly meets its stated purpose.