Calls for Transparency Over Solicitors’ Exam After Whistleblower Raises Bias Concerns

SQE · whistleblowing · regulatory transparency

An anonymised whistleblower report reviewed by Legal Lens alleges that the Solicitors Qualifying Examination is affected by opaque marking, barriers to appeal and equality concerns. The SRA and Kaplan deny unfairness and maintain that the assessment process is robust.

Focus: SQE marking, appeals and equality monitoring
Institutions: SRA, Kaplan and Legal Services Board
Format: public-interest investigative commentary

Publication snapshot

The article is based on an anonymised 11-page whistleblower document reviewed by Legal Lens.
The complaint alleges opacity in SQE scaling, weighting, marking and appeals.
The article records the SRA and Kaplan positions as reported in the source text.

Publication caution: the allegations in this article remain allegations unless admitted, independently verified, or determined by a competent authority. Any final version should retain the regulator/provider responses and confirm that named parties have had a fair opportunity to respond.

Contents

A whistleblower alleges an opaque SQE process

A whistleblower has accused the Solicitors Regulation Authority and its assessment provider Kaplan of running an opaque and potentially discriminatory qualification process that “systematically disadvantages” Black and working-class candidates.

In a detailed 11-page document shared with Legal Lens, a recent candidate who asked to remain anonymous alleges that the Solicitors Qualifying Examination suffers from serious design flaws, inconsistent marking and barriers to appeal that could breach equality and consumer-protection standards.

Allegation status: this article reports concerns raised by an anonymised source. It should not be read as a finding of unlawful discrimination, regulatory breach or individual wrongdoing.

Opaque marking and missing data

At the heart of the complaint is the SQE’s grading system. Candidates are awarded a score out of 500, with 300 set as the pass mark, but neither the SRA nor Kaplan publish the conversion between raw and scaled marks or the weight given to different practice areas.

The whistleblower claims that “average scores by subject do not reconcile with the overall result”, suggesting that scaling and weighting may be affecting outcomes in ways candidates cannot understand or challenge.

“Without access to the raw-to-scaled conversion or the error margins used to fix the pass mark, candidates are effectively sitting a black-box test.”Academic familiar with psychometric standard-setting, as described in the source material

Experts in assessment design say such opacity is unusual for a high-stakes professional exam.

January 2024 marking error

The allegations follow a confirmed error in the January 2024 sitting, when the SRA admitted that a “rounding and validity” issue had led to incorrect results for an undisclosed number of candidates.

The whistleblower’s report, however, says at least 175 people were initially failed, with some losing training contracts before the problem was acknowledged.

“Goodwill offers were made inconsistently and without transparency.”Whistleblower report reviewed by Legal Lens

The report calls for an independent audit of all affected sittings. The SRA said the matter had been “fully investigated” and that all candidates who might have been impacted “were contacted and compensated appropriately.”

Appeals described as too costly and too narrow

The document also criticises the appeals process, which costs several hundred pounds and only permits challenges on limited procedural grounds. Until 2023, candidates could request a low-cost “clerical check” to confirm their marks, but that service has been discontinued.

“It now costs more to appeal an SQE result than to sit some undergraduate exams. There is no transparency in who reviews the appeals, or whether they have any diversity of perspective.”Whistleblower report reviewed by Legal Lens

The SRA says the process is “robust and fair”, adding that all appeals are handled independently by Kaplan’s assessment board.

Ethnicity gap and equality duties

Data published by the SRA itself show persistently lower pass rates among Black candidates, both in SQE1 and SQE2. While the regulator has commissioned research to explore possible causes, it maintains there is “no evidence” of bias in the exam itself.

The whistleblower disagrees, arguing that the combination of high costs, limited sittings and a three-attempt rule within six years amplifies disadvantage for candidates from poorer backgrounds.

“When known attainment gaps exist, a lack of transparency becomes an equality issue.”Whistleblower report reviewed by Legal Lens

Equality campaigners say the issue may engage the Equality Act’s Public Sector Equality Duty, requiring regulators to take active steps to eliminate discrimination.

Calls for an independent review

The report urges the Legal Services Board, which oversees the SRA, to launch an independent review of how the SQE is marked and scaled, and to require publication of key data.

Publish mark-conversion data

The report calls for raw-to-scaled mark tables for each sitting, so candidates can understand how their marks were converted.

Explain weighting by practice area

It seeks publication of the weighting given to different practice areas and how those weightings affect final outcomes.

Clarify standard-setting methods

The report asks for details of the Modified Angoff and equating methods used in the assessment process.

Disclose panel demographics

It also proposes anonymised demographic data for assessment and appeal panels.

The report further proposes reinstating clerical checks, allowing candidates to sit the two SQE1 papers separately, and introducing a second assessment provider to reduce reliance on Kaplan.

Regulatory response

An SRA spokesperson told Legal Lens it “takes these concerns seriously” and “will continue to evaluate and improve the SQE”. They added that a comprehensive equality monitoring programme is under way, with further reports due later this year.

Kaplan declined to comment on individual allegations but said the exam “is subject to independent oversight and rigorous quality assurance.”

Right of reply: before publication, retain the SRA and Kaplan responses in full or in accurately summarised form. If further responses are received, update the article and note the date of update.

Growing pressure for reform

Legal academics, MPs and equality advocates are now calling for greater scrutiny. An assessment expert at a leading law school said: “Transparency builds trust. If the SQE is sound, publishing the data should only strengthen confidence.”

The Legal Services Board confirmed it had received correspondence on the issue and is “considering next steps.”

For many aspiring solicitors, the stakes could not be higher. As the whistleblower’s report concludes:

“When one opaque exam determines entry to an entire profession, the burden of proof lies with those who designed it — not those who fail it.”

Disclaimer

This article is based on an anonymised whistleblower report reviewed by Legal Lens. All parties named were offered the opportunity to respond. Allegations remain allegations unless admitted, independently verified, or determined by a competent authority. The information presented is for public-interest and investigative purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.