John Bowie, LawFuel publisher
It used to be that becoming a lawyer in Britain required intelligence, effort, and even resilience. Now, apparently, it requires none of the above. A small but vocal crowd of aspiring solicitors is demanding that the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) be made easier. The Telegraph’s Suevalla Braverman writes about ‘Snowflake Solicitors’ who are destroying the legal profession. Too hard, they cry. Disproportionately difficult. Biased. In other words: I flunked it, and it’s not my fault.
This is Britain in 2025, where feelings have officially overtaken facts. What once would’ve been laughed out of a pub is now a petition: water down the exams so no one feels left out. Not make better lawyers — just make more comfortable failures.
It’s not about access, of course. It’s about outcomes. Because if not everyone passes, then obviously the system must be rigged. Standards? Elitist. Excellence? Oppressive.
The actual idea of testing someone’s legal competence via a difficult exam is now viewed by some as a form of violence.
Law exams are supposed to be hard.
But now we’ve entered an age where “demanding competence” is seen as gatekeeping. Where merit must step aside so that mediocrity might feel welcome.
If standards vanish then the value of English law, one of our few remaining exports of any global value, starts to dissolve. International clients don’t pick English law because it’s inclusive — they pick it because it works. Because it’s shaped by professionals who earned their place.
Make it easier to qualify, and you flood the market with undercooked candidates who then struggle in an oversaturated field. The end result would be fewer jobs, lower pay, and the sort of lawyers who need a safe space after cross-examination.
While the U.S., China, and India are busy producing top-class legal minds, we’re over here debating whether exams should include nap breaks and affirmations.
So no, the problem isn’t that the SQE is too hard. The real question is: when did we all go so soft?
