July 2025’s SQE1 pass rate was only 41 per cent across all the cohort of exam candidates, by far the lowest pass rate for SQE1 so far. These results have reignited once again the debate around the efficacy of the SQE. For a professional gateway exam, this low pass rate is not a good outcome. It is further evidence that the format and candidate experience of SQE1 needs to be reviewed.
At the same time, SQE2 continues to achieve strong results. The most recent sitting saw 82 per cent overall and 84 per cent of first-time candidates pass. This consistent high performance highlights a stark contrast: candidates who reach SQE2 demonstrate strong competence, suggesting that SQE1 is acting as a significant hurdle.
It was pleasing, therefore to hear confirmation from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), at a conference last week, of an upcoming technical review of the SQE; could this development signal the start of meaningful refinements to improve how future solicitors are assessed?
At the recent Westminster Legal Policy Forum, Julie Swan, the SRA’s head of education and training, said: “In line with our evaluation plan, we are in the process of appointing external assessment experts to review how the assessments are working. This work will kick off at the end of the year, and we’ll be reporting next year.”
That statement marks the first time that the SRA has publicly indicated that an external review of the assessment process will take place. For those who have followed the data closely, and for the thousands of candidates who have now sat the SQE1, it is a welcome and necessary move. The review is an opportunity to strengthen the SQE’s foundations, improve accessibility, and ensure it is fair for all candidates, making sure it works for the next generation of solicitors.
The July 2025 results in context
The July 2025 SQE1 sitting produced the lowest overall pass rate since the assessment was launched. Just 41 per cent of candidates passed, down from 56 per cent in January 2025 and 44 per cent in July 2024.
What is the reason for this variation in pass rate for such a vital professional examination? Why should summer candidates struggle in comparison to January’s? Could it be that they are self-funding, balancing work and study? The statistical report doesn’t provide many answers.
The main differential in the make-up of July’s cohort appears to be a slightly higher proportion of resitters. For this cohort, 46 per cent of first-time candidates passed SQE1, compared to 41 per cent overall, indicating that candidates re-taking the exam continue to face major challenges in improving their scores, which is unlikely to be due to preparation alone. Some of our students speak of anxiety caused by the exam experience and those that retake can find it emotionally harder, as they heap more pressure on themselves. This pressure is often due to financial burden, hidden costs of unpaid leave and study time, and the exam days themselves.
Perhaps the levels of performance in July’s SQE1 are like previous cohorts when you breakdown the stats? We can’t see that trend either. For example, when you look at age only, 48 per cent of candidates aged 18-24 passed in July, versus 62 per cent in January 2025. Additionally, out of those candidates with a first-class degree only 67 per cent passed in July, compared to 80 per cent in January 2025. It suggests that the SRA must look beyond these statistics to explore these variations and to give us reassurance that the exam process has integrity and fairness at its heart.
The July 2025 report also reinforces a concerning trend which has persisted since the SQE was introduced: pass rates vary by ethnicity, socio-economic background, and other demographic factors, and this pattern is consistent with January 2025 results, showing that systemic disparities are persistent and not a one-off. We can see that 28% of black candidates and 39 per cent of Asian candidates passed SQE1 in July. How can we motivate and support students of colour to have confidence when taking the exams when the statistics show these kinds of differentials?
What should the review include?
We have been told that the SRA will appoint external experts to examine how the assessments are
functioning in practice in their forthcoming review. We want to encourage the SRA to make this review
in depth, incorporate candidate’s experiences and wellbeing, as well as the insight from their own
statistical reports.
Our students at the College of Legal Practice consistently report that the speed, intensity and length of the SQE1 papers are among the most difficult aspects of the exam. Even those who are very well-prepared and highly
capable can struggle to demonstrate their true ability under such constrained and pressurised
conditions. Those candidates who have less confidence in themselves, and less support around them
from employers and peers, will undoubtedly find it harder to perform at their best in these kinds of
exams.
If the SRA intends to make the SQE a fair and inclusive gateway to qualification, this review needs to
look at how the assessment experience itself, the timing, pacing, and presentation of questions,
affects performance and fairness. At The College of Legal Practice, we would like to urge the SRA to look at:
- The pace and length of the assessments and assessment days
- The format of assessments, looking at the grouping and range of practice areas tested across
FLK1 and FLK2 - The focus on application of legal principle, compared to scope and breadth of legal
knowledge for each assessment. - The reasons behind differentials highlighted above, between different sittings and cohorts
What have the SRA said?
The SRA has confirmed that it will be appointing external assessment experts to review how the SQE assessments are working. This work will hopefully begin at the end of 2025, with reporting scheduled for next year. The Statement of Solicitor Competence, from which the SQE content is drawn, will also be reviewed in 2026 to ensure it reflects the skills and knowledge required of solicitors in practice. Together, these developments could mark the start of the next phase in the SQE’s evolution; one focused on refinement rather than reform, ensuring that the exam continues to serve its core purpose: to open the solicitor profession to all those capable of succeeding within it.
Dr Giles Proctor is CEO of the College of Legal Practice
