Sqe or lpc
i graduated from my Llb summer 2023 and landed a paralegal job in a well respected company. The way it works there is people paralegal for say two years and then they are offered a TC, and this is a position they would like to continue regardless of the SQE. So my question is to whether complete the lpc part time or sqe part time. I know the lpc tests people to the standard of a trainee whereas the sqe tests people to the standard of an NQ which is one of the things that is putting me off. However doing it via the SQE route I could qualify a year or so quicker and have more control. For example if the company decides to take longer to give me a TC or etc etc. However the LPC does seem a little easier and some exams are open book which is another thing drawing me to it. In terms of the TC there is one paralegal who has been here longer than me who will be offered it next and then it’ll be my turn- so who knows I may be offered a TC a little earlier. I am just so unsure bc of all the uncertainty. I am also unsure if they will ask me to complete my LPC first before embarking on the TC. Please advise !!
Reply 1
Original post by Confused2729372
i graduated from my Llb summer 2023 and landed a paralegal job in a well respected company. The way it works there is people paralegal for say two years and then they are offered a TC, and this is a position they would like to continue regardless of the SQE. So my question is to whether complete the lpc part time or sqe part time. I know the lpc tests people to the standard of a trainee whereas the sqe tests people to the standard of an NQ which is one of the things that is putting me off. However doing it via the SQE route I could qualify a year or so quicker and have more control. For example if the company decides to take longer to give me a TC or etc etc. However the LPC does seem a little easier and some exams are open book which is another thing drawing me to it. In terms of the TC there is one paralegal who has been here longer than me who will be offered it next and then it’ll be my turn- so who knows I may be offered a TC a little earlier. I am just so unsure bc of all the uncertainty. I am also unsure if they will ask me to complete my LPC first before embarking on the TC. Please advise !!
Hi @Confused2729372
I think the first thing to do is check you are eligible to start an LPC. The SQE is the new route for qualifying and the LPC is being phased out meaning there has been a cut off date which will prevent people from starting the programme if they do not match the right criteria. If you are unable to study the LPC because of this cut off point, then you will be restricted to studying the SQE anyway. In terms of your situation with your firm, I think the best things is to speak to someone in the firm about it and your concerns. Likelihood is they can answer many of your concerns and give you conclusive advice rather than you speculating on what may be the case.
I hope this helps and good luck! 🙂
Reply 2
Original post by Confused2729372
i graduated from my Llb summer 2023 and landed a paralegal job in a well respected company. The way it works there is people paralegal for say two years and then they are offered a TC, and this is a position they would like to continue regardless of the SQE. So my question is to whether complete the lpc part time or sqe part time. I know the lpc tests people to the standard of a trainee whereas the sqe tests people to the standard of an NQ which is one of the things that is putting me off. However doing it via the SQE route I could qualify a year or so quicker and have more control. For example if the company decides to take longer to give me a TC or etc etc. However the LPC does seem a little easier and some exams are open book which is another thing drawing me to it. In terms of the TC there is one paralegal who has been here longer than me who will be offered it next and then it’ll be my turn- so who knows I may be offered a TC a little earlier. I am just so unsure bc of all the uncertainty. I am also unsure if they will ask me to complete my LPC first before embarking on the TC. Please advise !!
Check out this article https://superexam.uk/sqe-llb-and-gdl-grads/
Reply 3
You are one of the last cohorts to be allowed to do the LPC. Sept 2024 is the very last year BPP for example (which educates most City firm trainees) will offer the LPC. Find out if there are still LPC courses left starting Sept such as with BPP that allow it 2 y ears part time and I would do the LPC. You can use your paralegal work as time to count to knock I think 6 months of the 2 year TC OR I think there is an LPC "equivalent means" route that might cut it down even more.
Reply 4
Original post by 17Student17
You are one of the last cohorts to be allowed to do the LPC. Sept 2024 is the very last year BPP for example (which educates most City firm trainees) will offer the LPC. Find out if there are still LPC courses left starting Sept such as with BPP that allow it 2 y ears part time and I would do the LPC. You can use your paralegal work as time to count to knock I think 6 months of the 2 year TC OR I think there is an LPC "equivalent means" route that might cut it down even more.
Reply 5
Subject: Concerns Regarding Disparity in Evidence Requirements for Solicitor Qualification
Dear SRA Team,
I am writing to raise concerns about the disparity in the evidence requirements between the Equivalent Means route and the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) route for solicitor qualification. As an individual with a background in law, having completed a Law degree at..... University (DATE) and the LPC at the University ..... (DATE), I am currently pursuing solicitor qualification. However, I find the requirements under the Equivalent Means route to be excessively burdensome, particularly when compared to the SQE/QWE route.
Key Issue: Inconsistent Evidence Requirements for Work Experience
Candidates pursuing the Equivalent Means route are required to submit detailed evidence of their legal work experience to demonstrate that it meets the SRA’s Statement of Solicitor Competence. This involves mapping competencies and providing supporting documentation, which can be difficult to gather for several reasons, including:
Employer Policies: Many employers prohibit employees from taking copies of their work, even in anonymised form, due to confidentiality or data protection policies.
Time-Consuming Documentation: The process of gathering, mapping, and justifying every aspect of work experience can be extremely time-consuming compared to the evidence requirements under the SQE route.
In contrast, the SQE/QWE route only requires confirmation from a solicitor or Compliance Officer for Legal Practice (COLP), regulated by the SRA, that the candidate has completed their Qualifying Work Experience (QWE), with no expectation of providing extensive supporting documents.
Academic Parity Between LPC and SQE
The LPC and SQE both ensure that candidates meet the required academic and professional standards to practise as solicitors. While the SQE introduces a different assessment structure, the underlying standards are comparable. It seems unjust to impose additional documentation requirements on LPC-qualified candidates under the Equivalent Means route, especially when those pursuing the SQE route face fewer evidentiary demands for their work experience.
Impact on Candidates
The current system creates unnecessary barriers for those who have completed the LPC, including:
Limited Accessibility: Candidates may struggle to provide the required evidence due to employer policies or a lack of foresight during earlier roles.
Inequity in Recognition of Work Experience: The SQE route’s simplified process of solicitor confirmation is more practical, while the Equivalent Means route creates additional challenges for candidates who completed their work experience prior to the formalisation of these requirements.
Suggested Reforms
I strongly urge the SRA to consider the following changes to promote fairness and consistency across the qualification routes:
Align Evidence Requirements: Standardise the evidence requirements for the Equivalent Means route to match those of the SQE/QWE route, with candidates only needing confirmation from a solicitor or COLP.
Provide Flexibility in Evidence: Recognise the difficulties some candidates face in obtaining documentation from past employers, and allow alternative forms of evidence, such as written statements or affidavits from confirming solicitors.
Simplify Processes: Provide clearer, more straightforward guidance for Equivalent Means applicants to reduce administrative burdens while ensuring appropriate scrutiny.
Conclusion
The introduction of the SQE has modernised the solicitor qualification process, and the SRA should be commended for this development. However, the disparity in evidence requirements between the two qualification routes undermines the principle of fairness and creates undue obstacles for LPC-qualified candidates.
It is important to recognise the significant financial cost of completing the LPC, often exceeding £10,000, plus additional expenses such as university tuition. Candidates who find the Equivalent Means route overly demanding may be forced to take the SQE exams simply to avoid the extensive evidence requirements, adding unnecessary time and expense. This creates an unfair situation where candidates may end up paying more than those who followed the SQE route from the beginning.
I kindly request that the SRA review its policies for the Equivalent Means route and ensure fair treatment of all candidates, regardless of their chosen qualification pathway.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to receiving a response outlining the SRA’s position on this matter.
Yours sincerely, [Your Name]
If you agree with this—especially if you want to qualify as a solicitor using your existing law degree and LPC, without the need to undertake the SQE—please forward this to the SRA. Perhaps, if enough people contact them, common sense will prevail!
contactcentre @sra .org.uk
press @sra .org.uk
authorisation @sra. org.uk
aml @sra .org.uk
Paul.Philip @sra. org.uk
David.Stevens @sra .org.uk
Sean.Hankin @sra .org.uk
Dear SRA Team,
I am writing to raise concerns about the disparity in the evidence requirements between the Equivalent Means route and the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) route for solicitor qualification. As an individual with a background in law, having completed a Law degree at..... University (DATE) and the LPC at the University ..... (DATE), I am currently pursuing solicitor qualification. However, I find the requirements under the Equivalent Means route to be excessively burdensome, particularly when compared to the SQE/QWE route.
Key Issue: Inconsistent Evidence Requirements for Work Experience
Candidates pursuing the Equivalent Means route are required to submit detailed evidence of their legal work experience to demonstrate that it meets the SRA’s Statement of Solicitor Competence. This involves mapping competencies and providing supporting documentation, which can be difficult to gather for several reasons, including:
Employer Policies: Many employers prohibit employees from taking copies of their work, even in anonymised form, due to confidentiality or data protection policies.
Time-Consuming Documentation: The process of gathering, mapping, and justifying every aspect of work experience can be extremely time-consuming compared to the evidence requirements under the SQE route.
In contrast, the SQE/QWE route only requires confirmation from a solicitor or Compliance Officer for Legal Practice (COLP), regulated by the SRA, that the candidate has completed their Qualifying Work Experience (QWE), with no expectation of providing extensive supporting documents.
Academic Parity Between LPC and SQE
The LPC and SQE both ensure that candidates meet the required academic and professional standards to practise as solicitors. While the SQE introduces a different assessment structure, the underlying standards are comparable. It seems unjust to impose additional documentation requirements on LPC-qualified candidates under the Equivalent Means route, especially when those pursuing the SQE route face fewer evidentiary demands for their work experience.
Impact on Candidates
The current system creates unnecessary barriers for those who have completed the LPC, including:
Limited Accessibility: Candidates may struggle to provide the required evidence due to employer policies or a lack of foresight during earlier roles.
Inequity in Recognition of Work Experience: The SQE route’s simplified process of solicitor confirmation is more practical, while the Equivalent Means route creates additional challenges for candidates who completed their work experience prior to the formalisation of these requirements.
Suggested Reforms
I strongly urge the SRA to consider the following changes to promote fairness and consistency across the qualification routes:
Align Evidence Requirements: Standardise the evidence requirements for the Equivalent Means route to match those of the SQE/QWE route, with candidates only needing confirmation from a solicitor or COLP.
Provide Flexibility in Evidence: Recognise the difficulties some candidates face in obtaining documentation from past employers, and allow alternative forms of evidence, such as written statements or affidavits from confirming solicitors.
Simplify Processes: Provide clearer, more straightforward guidance for Equivalent Means applicants to reduce administrative burdens while ensuring appropriate scrutiny.
Conclusion
The introduction of the SQE has modernised the solicitor qualification process, and the SRA should be commended for this development. However, the disparity in evidence requirements between the two qualification routes undermines the principle of fairness and creates undue obstacles for LPC-qualified candidates.
It is important to recognise the significant financial cost of completing the LPC, often exceeding £10,000, plus additional expenses such as university tuition. Candidates who find the Equivalent Means route overly demanding may be forced to take the SQE exams simply to avoid the extensive evidence requirements, adding unnecessary time and expense. This creates an unfair situation where candidates may end up paying more than those who followed the SQE route from the beginning.
I kindly request that the SRA review its policies for the Equivalent Means route and ensure fair treatment of all candidates, regardless of their chosen qualification pathway.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to receiving a response outlining the SRA’s position on this matter.
Yours sincerely, [Your Name]
If you agree with this—especially if you want to qualify as a solicitor using your existing law degree and LPC, without the need to undertake the SQE—please forward this to the SRA. Perhaps, if enough people contact them, common sense will prevail!
contactcentre @sra .org.uk
press @sra .org.uk
authorisation @sra. org.uk
aml @sra .org.uk
Paul.Philip @sra. org.uk
David.Stevens @sra .org.uk
Sean.Hankin @sra .org.uk
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- ULaw or BPP
- Sqe or Lpc
- SQE/QWE Vs Equivalent Means / LPC route - complaint email to SRA
- Legal Practice course
- LPC Fail.
- Ucl clearing 2025
- I recently graduated with first-class honours in LLB Law from a non-Russell Group uni
- Seeking Guidance: Navigating the Next Steps Toward Becoming a Solicitor
- SQE help - ULaw or BPP
- Advice for a Career Changer looking to qualify as a solicitor
- Law conversion courses
- Failed a pgdl module + training contract
- MSc Law and Professional Practice - KCL - AVOID THIS COURSE
- Is SQE worth it?
- LLB graduate 2018 - want to begin studying LPC / SQE looking for advice
- Torn between an LLM in commercial law and an LLM Legal practice (SQE1 & SQE2)
- LLB Masters - is it needed ?
- LPC LLM Legal Practice part time
- About the SQE/Law degree/Accounting
- Uni of Nottingham Law 2025 Entry
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
CPS Pupillage/Legal Trainee Scheme (Oct 2026 Start!)Last reply 1 month ago
Contract, accrued obligations and Estoppel (or something else)Last reply 1 month ago
Pupil barrister relies on fictitious cases. Judge not delighted.Last reply 2 months ago
No internship/work experience as a first year student wanting a Law TCLast reply 2 months ago
Optimum time to start Barrister Training Course (Jan or Sept)?Last reply 4 months ago
CPS Legal Trainee Scheme 2025 (start October 2026)
