Frustrated Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) candidates are calling on the SRA to increase accessibility to the appeals process after a results error saw 175 candidates mistakenly told they had failed their exams. 

On Monday last week, the SRA announced that 175 candidates who sat SQE1 in January and were told they had failed on 14 March, had actually passed.

The SRA revealed that the error was initially spotted by Kaplan on 2 April, nearly three weeks after the results for the January SQE1 sitting had been issued. Candidates were finally informed two weeks later when they received the new results. 

The mathematical error in the results was discovered as a result of investigations conducted after candidates appealed. Questions have been raised over how long it took for Kaplan to recognise its error in the results and whether it could have been discovered sooner.

One source told The Lawyer: “It’s amazing it’s taken them so long to find this error. Things would have been sorted a lot quicker if we had the clerical check.”

The SRA’s clerical check option was removed last summer in an update to its appeals policy that also increased the financial burden for candidates looking to challenge their marks.

At the time, the SRA said: “Since the SQE was introduced, the clerical check process has not found any error in the calculation and collation of marks for any candidate that has made a request since.”

The update also clarified that a successful appeal would not result in a change to the candidate’s raw mark unless their retake was higher. Students have complained that this process can be lengthy if they have to wait six months for the next exam sitting, often affecting their career trajectory and when they intend to qualify.

Commenting for this article, the SRA said that the clerical checks process would not have revealed Kaplan’s error because it was designed instead to check that an exam provider’s records matched those issued to candidates before they were sent.

However, candidates are still concerned over the financial accessibility of the appeals process. Whereas a clerical check was £100, a first stage appeal for candidates costs £350. Should the first stage result need an appeal, the next cost to the candidate is £850.

Another affected student commented: “It’s been quite an ordeal since it happened, I honestly feel like I’ve been in a dream.

“In the days after the results in March, I felt like there was something wrong with the scoring…I didn’t appeal it. I would have done a clerical check but the appeals system is a lot more expensive. 

“This January exam was one of the first where they didn’t have the clerical checks. The appeals system puts people off the whole process. There must have been someone out there in the same position I was in who had a bit of bravery to appeal. This is why it’s now come to light.”

The Lawyer spoke to a number of affected students, with one deeming the SQE to be “the worst thing I’ve ever done. It genuinely felt like a make or break situation.

“This was my second attempt at SQE1, so I was getting prepared for the July retake knowing this would be my third and final attempt.

“The mental health impact has been huge and it’s been a test of resilience. For the last month in my head, I was going into July thinking I’ve got to pass this or my legal career is over.”

Due to this being their last attempt, this candidate has already forked out over £2,000 for a private tutor to help them. 

All candidates who conducted an appeal into their results from the January SQE1 sitting are to be automatically refunded by the SRA, with no need for them to make a claim.

Andrew Conlan-Trant, vice president of strategic partnerships at Kaplan, last week committed to: “a case-by-case review for each of the affected candidates,” and said there would be an investigation into the error.

He said: “I have no doubt that when we finish that, we will be able to identify changes to our policies and processes.”

Other candidates The Lawyer spoke to whose overall mark remained a fail, though their marks increased, are now sending in subject access requests in a bid to gain transparency over where they need to improve for the July sitting. 

In The Lawyer’s emergency podcast last week, the team unpacked the “SQE shambles” in more detail, and ask what comes next for the super exam.