How to register for the SQE1 and SQE2 assessments.
How to verify your ID and what you need to provide.
What the survey is, and what it covers.
If you need help or assistance to sit your assessments.
If you are a qualified lawyer, you may be eligible for an exemption.
How to book the SQE1 and SQE2 assessments.
Find out how and when to book your SQE assessments.
Upcoming assessment dates, booking windows, and test centre locations.
Find out how you can take the SQE assessments in Welsh.
Everything you need to know about sitting the SQE1 and SQE2 assessments.
The assessment specification for both FLK1 and FLK2, including annexes and sample questions.
The specification for the written and oral assessments, including annexes and sample questions.
Useful advice and resources to help you prepare for the SQE assessments.
What to expect on the assessment days and how to claim mitigating circumstances.
How to get your results, how assessments are marked, how to resit an assessment, or make an appeal.
What to expect when you get your results, and how to resit any assessments.
Read and download SQE reports.
Learn about what the SQE is, who it's for and how much it costs.
Find out what the SQE is and how it works.
Find out who's eligible to take the SQE, including exemptions.
Find out how much the SQE will cost and how you can pay for it.
Find out what candidates say about their experience of the SQE.
Due to inactivity, and for security reasons, you will be automatically logged out of your SQE account in 1 minute.
Press ’continue’ to stay logged in.
The monitoring and maximising diversity survey has been updated. Please return to the survey to reconfirm your answers and complete the new section at the end.
You must do this to remain eligible for the SQE. You will not be able to book your next assessment until you have updated your answers.
The Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) is the rigorous assessment designed to assure consistent, high standards for all qualifying solicitors. It consists of two parts:
This 2024/25 annual report of the SQE contains data about more than 16,200 individual candidates who took one or more components of the SQE between October 2024 and July 2025. It covers six SQE assessment windows as follows:
SQE1 (FLK1 and FLK2 assessments)
SQE2
Assessment reliability
Pass rates
Resits
Candidate trends
Apprentices
This SQE annual report provides a cumulative picture of the outcomes from the assessments that took place in the reporting period (October 2024 - July 2025).
Statistics and commentary are provided on the overall performance of candidates at the individual assessment level to enable comparisons over time and identify any emerging trends. Assessment data is provided, where applicable, at the cumulative level.
Six assessment windows are covered in this report with two for SQE1 and four for SQE2 as follows:
When preparing this report, the results for the October 2025 SQE2 assessment window deliveries were not available. We have included some provisional data on the number of candidates who attended this assessment where relevant.
The SQE is the single rigorous assessment designed to provide assurance that solicitors have been assessed to a consistent, high standard when qualifying. The SRA's Statement of Solicitor Competence sets out what solicitors need to be able to do to perform the role effectively, and provides everyone with a clear indication of what to expect from a solicitor. This is what the SQE tests.
The SRA has appointed Kaplan SQE (Kaplan) as the approved assessment provider for the delivery of the SQE assessments and other related services. Since the SQE was launched in 2021, more than 9,000 candidates have successfully completed both parts of the SQE.
In this reporting period, SQE assessments were delivered to more than 16,200 individual candidates in 37 countries. Of these, 4,358 successfully completed the SQE in this reporting period, having completed both SQE1 and SQE2.
SQE1 consists of two 180 question multiple choice single best answer assessments (FLK1 and FLK2) in the following subject areas:
These are delivered electronically in controlled and invigilated exam conditions mainly at Pearson VUE test centres across the UK and internationally.
Each FLK assessment was run across five consecutive days, with each candidate taking the assessment on one of the five days. The FLK1 and FLK2 assessments took place in consecutive weeks within each assessment window.
Each FLK assessment is split into two sessions of 2 hours 33 minutes, with 90 questions in each session. There is a 60-minute break between the sessions. Different assessment forms (papers) were allocated at random to candidates throughout each five-day assessment, with each form having a separate pass mark.
In order to pass SQE1, a candidate must pass both FLK1 and FLK2 assessments.
Candidates who fail their first attempt have two further opportunities to take the assessment(s) they failed (ie FLK1 and/or FLK2). More information can be found in the SQE1 Assessment Specification.
SQE2 comprises 16 stations - 12 written stations and four oral stations - that assess both skills and application of legal knowledge.
The stations in SQE2 cover six legal skills:
This is across five practice areas:
Ethics and Professional conduct are assessed pervasively throughout SQE2.
Candidates take SQE2 written assessments in Pearson VUE test centres over three consecutive half days. All candidates take the same written stations on the same date. To accommodate a greater number of candidates two separate “sittings” were used for the written stations in the April 2025 assessment window. Candidates sat either the morning or afternoon stations with candidates taking the same written stations within each “sitting”.
SQE2 oral assessments take place over two consecutive half days. During the reporting period, these took place in centres in Birmingham, Cardiff, Manchester and London. The logistics involved in running the oral assessments mean that not all candidates in a cohort can take the same oral stations on the same day. This means there are multiple "sittings" used for SQE2 oral stations. To protect the integrity of the assessments and to ensure equity, different tasks are set for the oral stations used at the different sittings. However, the same skills and practice areas are covered in all sittings of an assessment window.
SQE2 has a single pass mark for the whole assessment, covering all 16 stations. There may be slightly different pass marks between the sittings to account for differences in the difficulty of the different oral station tasks, as described above. Also, for the two written sittings in the April 2025 assessment window.
Candidates who fail their first SQE2 attempt have two further opportunities to take the assessment. They must resit the whole 16 station assessment.
More information can be found in the SQE2 Assessment Specification.
Exemptions from SQE1 (FLK1 and/or FLK2) and SQE2 assessments are only available to qualified lawyers. Whilst exemptions are available for both assessments, SQE1 exemptions are rarely given.
There are some candidates who meet the SRA transitional arrangements and are using SQE2 to qualify as a solicitor (alongside qualifying work experience). They are not required to take SQE1.
To summarise, there are three types of candidates:
The data provided in this report relate to candidates who received a mark for any of the assessments. Candidates whose attempts were discounted due to mitigating circumstances are not included. Outcome data are provided separately for FLK1 and FLK2 assessments, as well as overall for SQE1. Data is also provided for SQE2.
In this reporting period, a total of 16,278 individual candidates received a mark for one or more of the SQE assessments. Table 1 below shows the number of candidates for each assessment, along with the numbers and proportions of candidates by attempt number, where applicable.
Candidates are allowed up to three attempts for each assessment within a six-year period. At the time of writing this report, there had been eight opportunities to sit SQE1 and thirteen opportunities to sit SQE2. A small proportion of candidates had made a third attempt at the assessments.
At their first SQE1 attempt, candidates are required to sit both FLK1 and FLK2 in the same assessment window. If they fail one, they only need to resit that one assessment. Any passes can be carried forward and used within a six-year period.
Because of this, and due to mitigating circumstances applied separately for FLK1 and FLK2, the number of candidates may differ across FLK1, FLK2 and SQE1 overall.
*Data provided for candidates who sat both FLK1 and FLK2 in the assessment window
**Where candidates sat both FLK1 and FLK2 in the same assessment window but with different attempt numbers (eg due to a previous discounted attempt)
Although the SQE2 assessment in October 2025 had taken place when this report was written, the marks had not been released to candidates. There were 1,358 candidates who sat SQE2 in October 2025. These approximately breakdown as:
These numbers will change if there are successful mitigating circumstance claims with attempts being discounted.
Statistical reports are published after results are released. Data from the October 2025 assessment will be included in the 2025/26 annual report.
Table 2 provides the pass marks for each assessment, the average score (Mean) and standard deviation (SD). While Table 3 provides measures of test reliability (Cronbach's alpha and standard error of measurement (SEm)).
For SQE1, with multiple testing days and the use of scaled scores for the assessments, we deployed more than one form of the assessment for each assessment window. To achieve accurate and fair comparisons between test takers the pass marks are scaled to 300 (on a scale of 0 to 500, where 0 equates to 0% and 500 equates to 100%). The quality statistics are provided as an average of the values for the multiple assessment forms for each assessment window.
For SQE2, January 2025 saw a similar move to the use of scaled scores, enabling accurate and fair comparisons between assessment takers across the multiple sittings. The quality statistics are also provided as an average of the values for the multiple sittings for each assessment window.
Cronbach's alpha (α) is a measure of test reliability that estimates the internal consistency, or how closely related the sets of items are in a test. It therefore tells us how well items (questions) work together as a set. A high α coefficient suggests that candidates tend to respond in similar ways from one item to the next. Values for α range from 0 (where there is no correlation between items) to 1 (where all items correlate perfectly with one another). The widely accepted gold-standard α for high-stakes assessments is 0.8.
In all SQE1 assessments to date, α has been greater than 0.9 and above 0.8 for SQE2, suggesting very good internal consistency and high reliability for the SQE1 and SQE2 assessments.
The SQE assessments provide an observed/obtained score for a candidate at a snapshot in time (the assessment). If the candidate were to sit the same assessment on another occasion, they may achieve a different score owing to various factors. Some of these can be controlled to an extent, such as the training provided, and some cannot, such as the amount of sleep the candidate got the night before the assessment.
A candidate's theoretical "true" score can only be estimated by their observed score, but there is an inevitable degree of error around each candidate's observed score, which is consistent with most assessments.
The standard error of measurement (SEm) for an assessment is an estimate of how repeated measures of the same group of candidates on the same assessment would be distributed around their theoretical "true" scores. The SEm is a function of the reliability of the assessment (α) and the standard deviation in scores on the assessment. Generally, the higher the reliability, the lower the standard error of measurement and vice-versa
For all SQE assessments to date, the SEm has been below 4%, which provides confidence that observed scores generally represent a very good approximation of true scores in these assessments.
*Average values across the multiple forms (FLK1 and FLK2) and sittings (SQE2) are provided, with scaled values provided where 0 equates to 0%, 300 equates to the pass mark, and 500 equates to 100%.
**Whilst pre the move to scaled scores for SQE2 the scores have been scaled using the same methodology
*Average values across the multiple forms (FLK1 and FLK2) and sittings (SQE2) are provided
Tables 4a to 4c below summarise the journey so far for the candidates who have received assessment marks in this reporting period. These are provided separately for SQE1 (candidate outcomes) and SQE2 (candidate routes and outcomes). The candidates shown in table 4b include transitional candidates not required to take SQE1.
*Reported for the second SQE1 window where a candidate has sat in both assessment windows in this period
Of the 2,006 candidates who passed SQE1 in January 2025 and went on to sit SQE2 in April 2025, 1,759 (88%) passed and 247 (12%) failed. For those who sat SQE2 in July 2024, 461 (84%) passed and 88 (16%) failed.
3,211 candidates failed FLK1 and/or FLK2 in January 2025 - of these, 603 (19%) passed SQE1 in July 2025 (included within the Passed rows of the table above).
Of those who attempted just FLK1 or FLK2 in either January 2025 or July 2025, 1,208 (67%) passed their remaining assessments (included within the Passed rows of the table above).
Candidates who fail their first or second attempts may benefit from reviewing the information contained later in this report relating to candidate performance in different practice areas.
*Reported for the first SQE2 window where a candidate has sat in more than one assessment window in this period
Of the 575 candidates who did not take SQE1 and sat SQE2, 311 (54%) passed between October 2024 and July 2025. This compares to the higher rate of 84% for those taking SQE2 after passing the SQE1.
*Reported for the latest SQE2 window where a candidate has sat in more than one assessment window in this period
Of the 4,669 candidates who passed SQE2 in this reporting period:
Of the 1,083 candidates who did not pass SQE2 in this reporting period:
Table 5 shows the candidate pass rates (and number passing) for each assessment for all candidates and by attempt number, and for SQE2 by whether SQE1 had been previously sat.
Of the two SQE1 assessments, the pass rates for FLK1 have been higher than for FLK2 (+3% in both January 2025 and July 2025), which is consistent with previous SQE1 assessment windows.
The overall pass rate for SQE1 was higher in January 2025 (56%) than in July 2025 (41%) which is consistent with those in 2024.
Pass rates in both January and July 2025 were lower for resitting candidates when compared to first attempt candidates. This was true for both FLK1 and FLK2.
The pass rates for resitting candidates were lower in July than in January for FLK1 (decreasing from 49% to 40%) and FLK2 (49% and 43% respectively for January and July).
The proportion of candidates resitting increased between the January and July 2025 assessments for both FLK1 and FLK2. This rose from 15% to 23% for FLK1 and from 18% to 26% for FLK2. The proportions of resitting candidates in the July 2025 assessment window are the highest to date.
The lower pass rates for resitting candidates might indicate that they should consider taking more time (and/or putting in more work or training) between sittings. This may help them improve from a failing to a passing standard.
The SQE2 pass rates are higher than for SQE1. This is expected given the SQE2 eligibility requirement to have qualification-level functioning legal knowledge (ie have passed SQE1, have an exemption or are a transitional candidate).
The proportion of candidates taking SQE2 who were not required to sit SQE1 has remained fairly consistent this year across three of the four SQE2 assessments (13%-14%) with the proportion being lower in SQE2 April 2025 (6%).
Candidates who sat SQE1 performed better than those who had not, with pass rates ranging between 79% and 85%, compared to between 47% and 62% for those who had not sat SQE1.
The proportion of resitting attempts has increased from 6% in the previous year to 12% this year. The pass rates are significantly lower than for first attempt candidates.
The pass rates for second attempt candidates range between 53% and 75%, compared to a range of 77% to 84% for first attempt candidates. Candidates should carefully consider the timing of their resit to allow sufficient time to improve to a passing standard.
*Sat both assessments but with a different attempt number for each
**not reportable as less than 10 candidates in the attempt group
The SRA collects diversity and socio-economic data to help understand how candidates with different characteristics and backgrounds perform in the assessments. The categories are consistent with data collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the Social Mobility Commission.
Data is collected from candidates via an online monitoring and maximising diversity survey (or demographic data survey), completed or updated ahead of assessment registration. Appendix 1 lists the data reported on in this section.
The large number of characteristics and groups within characteristics recorded in the data collected means that candidate numbers in some of the groups are small.
In the tables below, we present univariate analysis of the outcomes data, which looks at each of the characteristics individually and independently. Tables 6 to 13 provide the following for FLK1, FLK2, SQE1 and SQE2 for each of the 15 characteristics presented:
Data in the tables exclude candidates who select 'Prefer not to say' - the following provides some proportions of candidates who selected this response:
Compared to the previous year, the proportion of "Prefer not to say" responses had remained similar.
These tables provide data for all candidates who received marks for any assessment (FLK1, FLK2, SQE1 and SQE2). Where a candidate has more than one attempt within any one assessment type in this reporting period, the latest attempt data has been used.
The data is taken from the January 2025 and July 2025 assessments for FLK1, FLK2, and SQE1. And from the October 2024, January 2025, April 2025 and July 2025 assessments for SQE2. Where there are fewer than 10 candidates in any group the proportions and pass rates are not reported; this is indicated by greyed out cells in the table.
The full questions asked in the online demographic data survey in relation to each category are available in Appendix 1.
Overall, the findings for where there are pass rate differences between groups are largely similar to last year.
This section considers each of the 15 characteristics individually. Whilst this provides a picture of the proportions and pass rates for each of the subgroups within each characteristic, we do know that other factors are associated with performance. And the variance within any single characteristic is often more attributable to other factors rather than the single characteristic. The findings from a multivariate approach (considering multiple factors) is available in the Examining Candidate Characteristics and Factors that Influence Scores in the SQE report which was published in November 2025.
Candidates who reported being in White or Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups achieved higher pass rates than those who reported being in Asian/Asian British or Black/Black British ethnic groups. Differences in pass rates between groups were significant for all assessments.
Pass rates were similar between candidates who declared a disability and those who did not for all assessments.
Most candidates (85%) taking SQE1 and SQE2 were in the younger age groups (under 35 years). 40% were in the 16-24 age group, and this group achieved higher pass rates than candidates in the older groups in FLK2, SQE1 and SQE2, and candidates above 35 years in FLK1.
Candidates who reported their sex as male achieved a higher pass rate than candidates who reported their sex as female in SQE1 assessments. The opposite was the case in SQE2
There were no significant differences between candidates whose gender was the same or different to their sex registered at birth.
Candidates who reported that their sexual orientation was Bi, Gay / lesbian, or Other achieved higher pass rates than those who reported as Heterosexual in SQE1 assessments. For SQE2, candidates who reported that their sexual orientation was Bi or Gay / lesbian achieved higher pass rates.
There were fewer than 10 candidates selecting "Other" for sex for all assessments. And for SQE2 there were fewer than 10 candidates selecting "No" for their gender being the same as the sex registered at birth. The proportions and pass rates are therefore not provided for these groups.
The most frequently indicated group was no religion or belief, with 41%-49% of candidates reporting this.
There were differences in pass rates between religion/belief groups reported by candidates in all assessments. For SQE1, candidates reporting Hindu or Muslim as their religion had lower pass rates, and those reporting no religion or belief or Jewish had higher pass rates. For SQE2, candidates reporting Muslim as their religion had lower pass rates.
Candidates who reported the occupation of the main household earner as professional achieved higher pass rates in SQE1 and SQE2.
Pass rates for candidates attending independent or fee-paying schools (with or without a bursary) were higher across all assessments. Candidates who attended school outside the UK achieved lower pass rates in SQE2 than those in the other groups.
Candidates who reported that at least one parent attended university achieved higher pass rates in SQE1 and SQE2.
*Group excluded from the Chi-square test of significance
The vast majority of candidates had at least an undergraduate degree. This group achieved higher pass rates than those with qualifications below degree level in FLK1, FLK2 and SQE1, with pass rates similar for SQE2. Candidates with qualifications below degree level are a small group accounting for approximately 1% of all candidates. Whilst an undergraduate degree (or equivalent qualification) is required for admission, it is not a requirement for taking the SQE1 or SQE2 assessments.
Candidates with first class undergraduate degree classifications achieved higher pass rates in all assessments and accounted for approaching a quarter of candidates across the assessments.
Candidates who disclosed they had not undertaken qualifying work experience achieved a higher pass rate in FLK2, SQE1 and SQE2, with the largest pass rate difference in SQE2.
All candidates disclosed whether they were already a qualified lawyer. Those who were not qualified achieved higher pass rates in all assessments than those who were qualified.
There were fewer than 10 candidates who reported having no formal qualifications for all assessments. The proportions and pass rates are therefore not provided for this group.
*Group excluded from the Chi-square test
English was the first language for the majority of candidates, and this group achieved higher pass rates in all assessments, with the difference being largest in the SQE2 assessment.
The tables in this section show the mean scores by practice area for FLK1 and FLK2 by the following candidate groups:
In FLK1, mean scaled scores across the seven practice areas assessed range from 291 for Dispute Resolution and Legal Services to 352 for Ethics. This suggests candidates find some practice areas more difficult than others.
Four of the seven practice area mean scaled scores are below 300 (equivalent to the overall passing standard) with Dispute Resolution (291) and Legal Services (291) having the lowest scores. Mean scaled scores were 300 or above for Ethics (352), Contract Law (315) and Tort (300).
In FLK2, the mean scaled scores appear slightly lower than for FLK1 and range from 282 for Wills and Intestacy to 348 for Ethics. The range in mean scaled scores is similar for both FLK1 and FLK2 (61 vs 67), which again suggests candidates find some areas more difficult than others, with Wills and Intestacy (282) and Property Practice (285) having the lowest scores. Mean scaled scores were above 300 for Ethics (348) and Criminal Liability (318).
There are similar patterns of performance between the passing and failing candidates - and first, second and third attempt candidates - across the majority of practice areas within each assessment. This suggests both stronger and weaker candidates perform well/less well in the same practice areas.
The differences in mean scores between passing and failing candidates for each of the practice areas range from 88 in FLK1 Ethics to 130 in FLK2 Land Law. The differences are 100 or more for the majority of the practice areas (5 out of 7 for FLK1, 6 out of 7 for FLK2), and less than 100 for Ethics (FLK1 and FLK2) and Legal Services (FLK1).
When comparing performance between attempt numbers, the differences between first attempt and second attempt mean scores range between 11 (FLK2 Ethics) and 34 (FLK1 Business Law and Practice). The majority of differences is below 30, and, as expected, higher mean scores for first attempt candidates across all practice areas.
The differences between first and third attempt candidates are smaller than the differences between first and second attempt for all of the FLK1 and FLK2 practice areas except FLK1 Ethics.
The following plots show the mean scaled scores for the FLK1 and FLK2 practice areas for the passing and failing candidates. Data is aggregated across the two assessment windows: pink = failing; green = passing; bars ordered by passing candidates mean scaled scores descending.
In FLK1, the wider difference between passing and failing candidates is evident for Tort and Business Law and Practice, and for FLK2, this is evident for Land Law and Criminal Law and Practice. The shortfall in knowledge of the weaker candidates is therefore greater in these practice areas, suggesting these areas may require more focus/preparation for future attempts at SQE1.
Y axis showing Mean scaled Score
X axis showing FLK1 Practice area
Result
Y axis showing Mean Scaled Score
X axis showing FLK2 Practice area
Comparing performance across practice areas to the previous year, candidates have consistently performed better in Ethics, Contract Law and Tort (FLK1) and Ethics, Criminal Liability and Land Law (FLK2) than in the other practice areas. Business Law and Practice and Dispute Resolution (FLK1) and Property Practice and Wills and Intestacy (FLK2) continue to be the more challenging practice areas for candidates.
In each SQE2 assessment window, the candidates are assessed in four written legal skills (Writing, Case and Matter Analysis, Research and Drafting) in five practice contexts (Dispute Resolution, Criminal, Property, Probate and Business). The combination of written legal skills and practice contexts will vary between assessment windows, with the exception of Business, which follows the same pattern.
In all assessment windows except for April 2025, all candidates sat the same 12 written stations within each assessment window. In the April 2025 assessment window, there were two separate written station sittings – morning and afternoon – with candidates taking the same written stations within each sitting.
Candidates were assessed in two oral legal skills – Interviewing and Advocacy – in four practice contexts: Property and Probate (Interviewing) and Dispute Resolution and Criminal Litigation (Advocacy) within each assessment window. Therefore, in total, the candidates sat four oral legal skills assessments within each assessment window (Property Interviewing, Probate Interviewing, Dispute Resolution Advocacy and Criminal Litigation Advocacy).
Candidates were also required to complete a Written Attendance Note / Legal Analysis for each Interviewing assessment.
In each assessment window, the oral legal skills assessments take place in sittings. The number of oral sittings required will depend on the number of candidates taking the assessment and differed across each assessment window:
For more on this, please see the SQE2 Assessment Specification (Organisation and delivery section).
The table in this section shows the mean scores by station (with data aggregated across assessments where there are common stations and aligned to ensure a comparable scale across the assessments) for the following candidate groups:
Looking at the station scores for all candidates, mean scores range between 307 and 368 with all mean scores above 300 (equivalent to the overall passing standard). Mean scores above 350 were achieved in five of the 24 different stations, as follows:
At the lower end, mean scores of less than 310 were in:
In the SQE2 skills assessments, mean scores for the oral stations were notably higher than for the written skills. Advocacy recorded the highest mean score overall at 364, with Interview and Attendance Note/Legal Analysis following at 340. The mean scores for the written skills ranged from a low of 314 for Legal Writing to a high of 337 for Case and Matter Analysis. Mean score differences between first attempt and resit candidates range from 13 (Interview) to 36 (Legal Research).
Mean performance across the five practice areas ranged from 312 (Business) to 349 (Dispute Resolution), representing a smaller range (37) compared to the range observed between the skills assessed (50). With the exception of Business, the range among the remaining practice areas is narrow, indicating that candidates generally did not find these other practice areas significantly easier or more difficult than one another. Mean differences between first attempt and resit candidates range between 22 (Property Practice) and 38 (Criminal Litigation).
Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the mean scores for the SQE2 skills and practice area scores for the passing and failing candidates. Data is aggregated across the four assessment windows: pink = failing; green = passing; bars ordered by passing candidates’ mean scores descending.
The patterns of performance between passing and failing candidates appear similar across most of the skills and practice areas. The differences are noticeably smaller for Interview and Attendance Note/Legal Analysis skill and Property Practice, as can be observed in Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively.
The mean score differences between passing and failing candidates demonstrate the scale of performance variance across the assessed skills and practice areas. For the six skills, the difference ranged from a low of 62 (for Interview and Attendance Note/Legal Analysis) to a high of 93 points (for Advocacy). For the five practice areas, the score difference ranged from 71 points (Property Practice) to 87 points (Dispute Resolution). This indicates a narrower spread of performance across the practice areas (range of 16) compared to the spread across the skills (range of 31).
The smaller score differences suggest less of a shortfall in the skills (and associated legal knowledge) for weaker candidates, indicating the other skills and practice areas may require more focussed preparation.
X axis showing Station
X axis showing Practice area
Comparing performance across the skills to the previous year, candidates have consistently performed better in Advocacy, with lower scores for Legal Drafting and Legal Writing. They also performed better in the Interview and Attendance Note skill this year compared to last year
Across the practice areas, performance has been similar with candidates having consistently performed better in Dispute Resolution and less well in Business.
Candidates who wish to become solicitors must demonstrate their understanding of ethics and professional conduct and apply that understanding to client-based situations. Upholding professional ethics not only protects clients but also preserves the integrity of the solicitor profession and the public’s confidence in it.
Ethics and professional conduct are assessed pervasively across SQE1. This section identifies areas in which candidates performed particularly well and other areas where candidates performed less well. However, candidates should expect to be assessed on any of the SRA Standards and Regulations listed in the SQE1 Assessment Specification.
Candidates were largely able to identify and apply relevant SRA Principles and provisions of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs (‘the Code’) to the following scenarios:
By contrast, candidates tended to perform less well in the following areas:
Table 17 shows the mean scaled scores (where 300 is equivalent to the passing standard for the overall assessment) for all candidates along with passing and failing candidates for ethics and non-ethics focussed assessment content across FLK1 and FLK2.
In each case, there is a strong positive correlation between performance on ethics questions and the overall score. Naturally, those candidates who have passed the assessments have significantly higher overall scores than those who have failed.
The mean scores are consistently higher for the ethics content compared to the non-ethics content across all assessments and groups. For all candidates, the mean differences range between 33 (FLK1 January 2025) and 80 (FLK1 July 2025). With the current data, there appears to be no pattern in mean differences between ethics and non-ethics content across the FLK1 and FLK2 assessments.
The mean differences between the passing and failing candidates are higher for the nonethics content (range 39 to 81) than for the ethics content (range 30 to 71), indicating the weaker candidates are stronger in the ethics content than in the non-ethics content.
Professional conduct and ethics are examined pervasively in the SQE2 assessments. There is no prescribed number of assessments that include a professional conduct or ethical issue in a SQE2 assessment window. However, these are generally tested in most subject areas for each assessment window, where possible. Candidates must be able to spot the ethical or professional conduct issue and exercise judgment to resolve any issues honestly and with integrity.
Currently, there is no separate mark for professional conduct or ethics questions. Professional conduct and ethics are marked within the Legally Comprehensive assessment criteria (ie one of the Law criteria). Refer to section 9. Feedback and Continuous Improvement for information about the introduction of a project to include a third 'Law' mark category on SQE2 assessments to improve pre-qualification requirements around ethics and professional conduct.
Kaplan SQE is the End Point Assessment Organisation for solicitor apprentices in England. Solicitor apprentices are required to pass SQE1 during their apprenticeship as the gateway requirement for SQE2, which is the end-point assessment (EPA).
Apprentices must pass SQE1 and have met all of the minimum requirements of their apprenticeship (including the gateway review) before they can attempt SQE2. When an apprentice has passed SQE2, they have completed the EPA for the Solicitor Apprenticeship Standard and passed the SQE.
Information about how solicitor apprentices and their training providers can engage with the SQE is available on our website.
This section considers the performance of solicitor apprentices who took an assessment in this reporting period, across all attempts. Further analysis on the number, characteristics and performance of first attempt solicitor apprentices over a longer period of time is available in the Qualifying Examination Report on Apprentice Performance which was published in October 2025.
Solicitor apprentices made up a small proportion of overall candidate numbers for each assessment as indicated in Table 18 and accounted for 8.5% of all candidate assessments in this reporting period.
In the SQE1 assessments, the first attempt candidate solicitor apprentice pass rates were higher than for the first attempt non-apprentices in all assessments with pass rates being between 3% and 9% higher.
For SQE2, the first attempt solicitor apprentice pass rates were higher than those for nonapprentice candidates for three of the four SQE2 assessments (all except April 2025), with pass rates being between 8% and 15% higher. In April 2025 the solicitor apprentice pass rate was 3% lower than the non-apprentice pass rate.
The higher pass rates for SQE2 are consistent with previous years and the findings in the Solicitor Qualifying Examination report on apprentice performance. This showed that, over the longer period of time, apprentices have scored significantly higher and achieved substantially better pass rates in SQE2 than non-apprentice candidates. This continues to evidence the apprentices' preparedness for the end point assessment.
*Proportion of apprentice candidates
There were 1,372 solicitor apprentices who took one or more of the assessments in this reporting period. Of these:
This section considers all candidates who took an assessment with a reasonable adjustment in place for each of the assessments in this reporting period. A special focus piece is provided in Section 10 which gives a more detailed narrative and analysis of the reasonable adjustments we have made. This draws on the aggregated data set from all the first attempt assessments in this period to offer deeper overall insight.
Our approach to developing assessments is to anticipate candidate requests for reasonable adjustments and, where possible, make assessment arrangements that minimise the necessity for adjustments to be made. How we consider reasonable adjustment, including how we communicate with candidates and the arrangements we most frequently make, is set out in the Reasonable Adjustments Policy.
We are committed to making sure that a candidate is not disadvantaged by reason of a disability in demonstrating their competence. We will make reasonable adjustments where a candidate, who is disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, would be at a substantial disadvantage in comparison to someone who is not disabled. We will make reasonable steps to remove that disadvantage.
We will also consider making accommodations where a candidate has condition's that impact on their ability to undertake the SQE. All such requests for accommodations are considered in Kaplan’s reasonable discretion and on a case-by-case basis.
During the year, we implemented 2,596 reasonable adjustment plans. This represents a 46% increase on the number implemented last year.
The average time between us receiving a completed application for reasonable adjustments (with full accompanying evidence) to us proposing an adjustment plan to a candidate was between four and eight working days at each assessment window.
For some candidates who require complex reasonable adjustment plans, considerable time can be needed to finalise their plan for the assessments and to ensure comprehensive support is arranged.
We strongly encourage candidates to contact us at the earliest opportunity to provide time to finalise adjustments/accommodations in ahead of the assessment. Test centre locations may change over time and all test centre places are subject to availability, so we need time to secure a suitable place. If candidates are not yet ready to book their assessment we can review their supporting information to reach an agreement about their adjustment plan.
Table 22 shows pass rates for candidates with reasonable adjustment plans alongside pass rates for the full cohort for FLK1, FLK2 and SQE2 assessments during the reporting period.
Whilst the FLK1 and FLK2 pass rates for the candidates with a reasonable adjustment plan in place were higher than the overall pass rates in Jan 2025 (5% and 7% higher respectively for FLK1 and FLK2), the pass rates were similar in the July 2025 assessments. For SQE2, the pass rates for candidates with a reasonable adjustment plan were higher than the overall pass rate in October 2024 (12% higher). The pass rates were similar for the other three assessments.
Plans were in place for candidates with a wide range of disabilities, long-term and fluctuating conditions. Accommodations were also agreed for some candidates who were pregnant/nursing mothers.
We continued to see that the most prevalent conditions amongst candidates with reasonable adjustment plans were associated with neurodiversity including dyslexia, autism, dyspraxia and ADHD.
The most common adjustments were as follows, with similar patterns seen across SQE1 and SQE2:
Other bespoke provisions were also arranged for candidates where evidence supported this. Examples of these included access to medical devices, use of a screen overlay and ergonomic devices or furniture.
After each assessment, candidates are invited to complete a survey to provide feedback about their experience. The questions in the survey (Appendix 2) relate to:
Candidates can provide general comments via free-text boxes. They can also provide their contact details should they wish to be contacted further about their feedback.
These surveys continue to provide valuable information for Kaplan and the SRA to consider. All responses are collated and analysed, with action plans put in place where improvements can be made, or new opportunities and solutions can be explored.
The response rates for surveys ranged from 28% to 42% across all six assessment windows.
To the question "How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the SQE assessment service provided by Kaplan SQE?", 46% to 57% of candidates responded "satisfied" or "very satisfied". The average satisfaction score ranged from 64% to 68%, with 73% to 79% of candidates saying "neither satisfied or dissatisfied", "satisfied" and "very satisfied".
The areas in the survey where candidates were most satisfied related to clarity of the SQE2 assessment questions and administration on the day of the assessment. The areas where candidates were least satisfied related to the simplicity of the processes for booking and requesting reasonable adjustments. In all of the areas in Table 23 below, the lowest score in the range had improved, particularly for simplicity of booking and simplicity of requesting a reasonable adjustment.
* "very satisfied" "satisfied" and "neither satisfied or dissatisfied" at each assessment window
**This question does not appear in surveys for the SQE1 assessment windows.
Although the survey invites candidates to give feedback about the SQE in Welsh, no candidates took the SQE in Welsh in 2024/25. Candidates could have chosen to sit a Welsh version of the SQE1 in January and July, and SQE2 in April or October.
Feedback from candidates and stakeholders has also been collected, reviewed and considered from various other sources. This includes input received from the SRA, its Psychometrician and the SQE Independent Reviewer about the overall delivery of the SQE assessments, and their oversight of any issue management should it arise.
Table 24 summarises some actions taken in response to stakeholder feedback and to improve the delivery of the SQE.
In line with the rising adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in virtually every sector of society, we have been exploring how it can be used as a supplement to our existing processes, overseen by our SQE team.
We have started to use AI to help with administrative tasks such as processing the large number of seat reservations forms that we receive for each booking window and gaining insight from the various sources of feedback we receive from candidates and training providers. We have also been using the AI tool within the Lexis legal database to assist our team of solicitor question writers, as part of our regular use of Lexis for legal research and associated tasks.
We are exploring how AI can help us in the question writing process by, for example, helping to check the consistency of dates and information in SQE questions, or helping to generate viable distractor options in SQE1 questions. This use of AI will be an extra layer of quality assurance to assist our question writers.
Where AI tools are used in any stage of the assessment creation process, the output will pass through our existing, expert-led quality assurance processes, overseen by our academic team, who are all qualified solicitors trained in assessment writing. To date we have not used any questions generated by AI in any SQE assessments.
>As we continue to explore the ways in which AI can help us in different areas of the SQE, any use of AI will always be in line with Kaplan UK’s commitment to its learners/candidates when employing AI. We will continue to add updates on use of AI in the SQE annual report.
Reasonable adjustments (RAs) are changes to the delivery of an exam that are intended to ensure that disabled candidates are not disadvantaged. The legal basis for the provision of reasonable adjustments is set out in the Equality Act 2010. They are made available to candidates with disabilities. A disability is defined in the Act as follows:
"A person has a disability for the purposes of the Act if he or she has a physical or mental impairment and the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities."
Typically, "long term" is a duration of more than twelve months. But there are some conditions which are either excluded or treated differently by the Act. The adjustments must be to address "substantial disadvantage" as such it must be more than trivial or minor in its effects.
Some people may have impairments or circumstances that do not meet the definition of a disability and are, therefore, not eligible for reasonable adjustments. Examples of such conditions might include a broken wrist, morning sickness or recovering from surgery. In such circumstances, we are often able to make accommodations. These are similar to reasonable adjustments but do not have a legislative basis.
Reasonable adjustments for most candidates are not complex. The most common, for example, consist of the provision of extra time or extra breaks. But some candidates have complex needs and this is reflected in the arrangements made to support them.
Below are some examples of adjustments that we have made. They vary from relatively simple adjustments that we see in high volumes to very specific ones for a candidate with complex needs.
Case study 1 example: Simple case
An adjustment plan for a candidate with a diagnosis of dyslexia. They requested 25% extra time for SQE1. We agreed on a reasonable adjustment plan of 25% extra time. The candidate then progressed to SQE2 and requested 25% extra time and use of a laptop where handwriting is required (SQE2 oral only). Based on their needs, we agreed a plan with 25% extra time for the written and most oral stations, and use of a laptop where handwriting is required.
Case study 2 example: A candidate with multiple disabilities
A candidate with multiple disabilities, including diagnoses of a chronic condition and specific learning differences. They requested extra time, breaks and a temperature controlled room. We agreed on a reasonable adjustment plan of 25% extra time, 25% stop the clock breaks, and a separate room accommodating the requirement for a temperature controlled room.
Case study 3 example: Complex case
A candidate with a disability with a visual impairment (blind or slight loss). They sat SQE2 and had requested the following adjustments:
We agreed on a reasonable adjustment plan including the following:
The following sections provide detail about candidates who have sat their assessments with a reasonable adjustment (RA) in place in the assessments in this reporting period. It provides insight into how many candidates are sitting their assessments with a reasonable adjustment, the number and types of adjustments in place, and the types of disabilities giving rise to adjustments.
The analysis also includes data shared by candidates when they complete the monitoring and maximising diversity survey when registering for an SQE assessment, and analysis of performance.
All analyses are based on first attempt candidates who had a reasonable adjustment plan in place; data from those resitting is excluded. In sections ii) and iii), data is included from:
Also present in the SQE2 cohort are 261 (26%) of the SQE1 candidates.
For comparing the reasonable adjustment cohort with those without one, data is included from:
Across the two SQE1 assessment windows, 996 candidates with at least one reasonable adjustment in place received a grade for a first attempt of FLK1 and/or FLK2. One or two adjustments were provided for most of these candidates (79%) with between three and six adjustments provided for the remaining 21% of these candidates.
Across the four SQE2 assessment windows, 695 candidates who received a grade for a first attempt of SQE2 did so with at least one adjustment in place. One or two adjustments were provided for the majority of these candidates (84%) with between three and six adjustments provided for the remaining 16% of these candidates.
The table and charts below summarise the number and proportion of candidates for each number of reasonable adjustments in place
Y axis showing Proportion of candidates
X axis showing Number of adjustments in place
Most candidates with one or more reasonable adjustments in place received extra time in their assessments (86% and 89% of candidates with a reasonable adjustment plan respectively for SQE1 and SQE2). The most common extra time adjustment is an additional 25% (extra time ranges from 20% to 100%) which was applied to 90% of the assessments for the candidates with extra time across SQE1 and SQE2.
The next most common adjustment is "stop the clock", which allows candidates to pause their assessments for a percentage of the assessment time, and on as many occasions as they choose. Respectively for SQE1 and SQE2, 56% and 52% of candidates with a reasonable adjustment had a stop the clock adjustment, with 98% of all assessments with this adjustment being with a 25% time allowance.
Across the SQE1 and SQE2 assessments both extra time and stop the clock adjustments were provided for 43% of all the assessments with reasonable adjustments in place.
The table and charts below provide a summary of the types of adjustments provided and the number and proportion of candidate assessments with these adjustments in place for SQE1 and SQE2. Details of some of the more specific adjustments which sit within the type are also provided (eg extra time and stop the clock).
*Specific adjustment within the type
X axis showing Type of adjustment
The candidates receiving reasonable adjustments have a diverse range of disabilities and conditions with approaching a quarter of candidates receiving a reasonable adjustment having multiple conditions (24% for SQE1 and 21% for SQE2). The most predominant group are the disabilities which fall within the learning or understanding or concentrating category, which includes dyslexia and dyspraxia. 34% of the SQE1 candidates and 29% of the SQE2 candidates with a reasonable adjustment have a disability within this category.
28% of candidates with adjustments for both SQE1 and SQE2 had disabilities within the social and behavioural category which includes conditions such as autism, ADHD and Asperger’s syndrome.
27% of SQE1 candidates with adjustments and 25% of SQE2 candidates with adjustments had mental health conditions, which includes depression, anxiety and panic attacks. Across both SQE1 and SQE2 assessments, approaching half (49%) of those with adjustments due to having multiple conditions had a mental health condition, compared to 20% of those with a single condition. This appears consistent with a well-documented association between having a physical disability or chronic condition and experiencing mental health conditions.
20% of the candidates with reasonable adjustments have disabilities or conditions within the ‘Other’ category, which includes all conditions or disabilities which do not fall within the other categories. This category includes (but is not limited to) long term illnesses or health conditions such as diabetes, epilepsy, cancer and chronic pain conditions.
*The Other category includes all other disabilities/conditions which do not fall within the other categories.
X axis showing Disability Category
Of all candidates who took FLK1, FLK2 or SQE2 as a first attempt across the two SQE1 and four SQE2 assessment windows in the reporting period, 9.1% and 13.5% of candidates had a reasonable adjustment respectively for FLK1/FLK2 and SQE2.
Considering the data collected in the monitoring and maximising diversity survey, this section compares characteristics of candidates with and without reasonable adjustments in the aggregated cohorts for FLK1, FLK2 and SQE2.
The tables and charts below show the proportions of candidates by characteristic within the sub-groups of those with a reasonable adjustment and those without. These are considered for ethnic group, sex, age and socio-economic group for FLK1, FLK2 and SQE2.
In the SQE1 assessments, candidates with a reasonable adjustment are more likely to be of white ethnicity and less likely to be of Asian ethnicity compared to candidates without. 55% of candidates with a reasonable adjustment are of white ethnicity compared with 46% of candidates without; 17% of candidates with a reasonable adjustment are of Asian ethnicity which compares to 28% of the candidates without.
For SQE2 the proportions by ethnic group are similar between candidates with and without an RA.
X axis showing Ethnic Group
Candidate type
Candidates with a reasonable adjustment are more likely to be female with 71%-72% of candidates with a reasonable adjustment being female compared to 62%-63% of candidates without.
X axis showing Sex
FLK1 and FLK2 candidates with a reasonable adjustment are more likely to be in the 16-24 age group (51% of candidates with a reasonable adjustment vs. 44% of candidates without). This difference is reversed for SQE2 where candidates in this age group are less likely to have a reasonable adjustment (41% vs. 46%) with candidates in the 25-34 age group being more likely to have a reasonable adjustment (53% of candidates with a reasonable adjustment vs. 46% of candidates without).
X axis showing Age Group
To facilitate this analysis, seven socio-economic groups were created taking into account the following variables for which data are collected in the candidate monitoring and maximising diversity survey:
Those who answered ‘Don’t know’, ‘Other’, ‘Prefer not to say’ or ‘Attended school outside of the UK’ to any of the three questions were excluded from the socio-economic analysis. This resulted in smaller cohorts of 5,409 for FLK1, 5,379 for FLK2 and 3,111 for SQE2. The full method for how candidates were allocated to the socio-economic groups can be found in Appendix 3.
The proportion of candidates with a reasonable adjustment in each socio-economic group is broadly representative of the proportions of candidates with no reasonable adjustments, suggesting that reasonable adjustments are accessible to candidates from all socioeconomic backgrounds.
For FLK1/FLK2, 36% of candidates with a reasonable adjustment are in the lower socio-economic groups (groups 1-3) which compares to 39% of candidates without. For SQE2, 31% of candidates with a reasonable adjustment are in the lower groups, compared to 36% of candidates without.
For FLK1/FLK2 63% of candidates with a reasonable adjustment are in the higher groups (groups 4-7) which compares to 61% of those without; for SQE2 69% of candidates with a reasonable adjustment are in the higher groups compared to 64% of the candidates without.
X axis showing Socio economic Group
The table and boxplot below provide the number of candidates, mean score and pass rate for the aggregated data by assessment (FLK1, FLK2 and SQE2) - this is shown for the full first attempt cohort and the sub-groups of those with a reasonable adjustment and those with no RA.
Overall, candidates with a reasonable adjustment have achieved higher scores and pass rates than those without in FLK1, FLK2 and SQE2 (score differences: 314 vs. 307 for FLK1; 314 vs. 302 for FLK2; 342 vs. 336 for SQE2).
Reasonable adjustments were in place for 9.0% of FLK1 candidates, 9.1% of FLK2 candidates, and 13.5% of SQE2 candidates. Because the cohorts with reasonable adjustments are a relatively small proportion and are not fully representative of the wider candidate group in terms of characteristics, some of which are known to be predictors of performance in the SQE assessments, direct comparative performance expectations are therefore not set. However, these findings offer reassurance that candidates with reasonable adjustments are not disadvantaged in the SQE assessments. This is because their performance is not below that of candidates without adjustments.
We have published a separate multivariate analysis of candidate performance covering a longer time period and a wider range of characteristics. This study, which uses a wide range of characteristics data, found that candidates who declare a disability perform in line with those who do not have one when all other factors are taken into account.
Despite receiving a reasonable adjustment, when surveyed, some candidates are not disclosing that they have a disability as defined by the Equality Act 2010. For the FLK assessments and SQE2, approximately one quarter of candidates with reasonable adjustments (22% to 24%) responded ‘No’ when asked if they considered themselves to have a disability, though a large majority (59% to 61%) responded ‘Yes.’
Furthermore, a small proportion (2–3%) of candidates who did not have a reasonable adjustment in place still self-identified as having a disability. This latter group may not have felt they needed any adjustments because their disability does not affect their access to or performance in the assessments, or they may not have been aware that adjustments could be provided to support them in the assessments.
The table below shows the response proportions to the survey question ‘Do you consider yourself to have a disability according to the definition in the Equality Act 2010?’ by reasonable adjustment (RA) status and assessment.
*Prefer not to say
For each question, candidates are asked to say whether they are very satisfied, satisfied, neither, unsatisfied or very unsatisfied.
Data using the responses to the following three questions in the EDI survey was used:
Create your personal SQE account and book your assessments.
Find out what happens after passing the SQE and admission to the roll of solicitors.
Stay up to date with SQE news and important announcements.