[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-340289-105":59,"doc-detail-340289-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","proposed-changes-to-the-rules-on-solicitors-qualifying-examination-exemptions-consultation-responses-april-2024","Proposed Changes to the Rules on Solicitors Qualifying Examination Exemptions - Consultation Responses - April 2024","","Proposed changes to the rules governing Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) exemptions are presented through consultation responses received from named respondents and organisations. The document addresses whether qualified lawyers who previously failed an assessment should be prevented from receiving exemptions, including reasoning related to competence, remedial training, and alignment with professional and public interest. Additional discussion covers likely impacts on applicants and compliance obligations under relevant agreements, including cross-jurisdiction considerations.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":20,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/proposed-changes-to-the-rules-on-solicitors-qualifying-examination-exemptions-consultation-responses-april-2024/340289/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/proposed-changes-to-the-rules-on-solicitors-qualifying-examination-exemptions-consultation-responses-april-2024/340289.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Jiven","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-24","2026-09-22",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":44},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Should the regulations be changed to prevent exemptions for qualified lawyers who previously failed an assessment?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Respondents largely support changing the regulations so that exemption decisions do not allow qualified lawyers to avoid an assessment they have already failed.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What positive or negative impacts could result from the introduction of the new rule?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Responses suggest the change would primarily affect a limited group of applicants and could encourage remedial training, while also raising the need to ensure compliance with relevant obligations across jurisdictions.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How should the proposed amendments address exemptions related to SQE parts that were failed?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Responses range from agreeing to taking a neutral stance, with at least one view that failing an SQE part demonstrates insufficient knowledge requiring further study and resitting the exam.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},340289,1790378998,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":19,"category_name":20,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":44,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":41,"preview_page_count":4},1099513958607,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/100002390cf8733938c?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1778829742770036399","Proposed changes to the rules on Solicitors Qualifying Examination exemptions  \nConsultation responses  \nApril 2024  \nSensitivity: General  \nThese are the texts of the responses from respondents who asked us to name them and publish their responses.  \nChanges to the rules on Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) exemptions Response ID:30 Data  \n2. About you  \n\n| First name(s)\u003Cbr>Dawn |\n| --- |\n| Last name\u003Cbr>Lawson |\n| I am responding..\u003Cbr>on behalf of an organisation |\n| On behalf of what type of organisation?\u003Cbr>Law society |\n| Please enter the name of the society\u003Cbr>Surrey Law Society |\n\nHow should we publish your response?  \nPlease select an option below.  \nPublish the response with my/our name  \n3. Consultation questions  \n1) To what extent do you agree that we should change our regulations and the principles for qualified lawyers to prevent qualified lawyers from being granted an exemption from an assessment that they have previously failed?  \nStrongly agree  \nPlease add any comments you would like to make:  \n2) Can you see any other impacts, either positive or negative, from the introduction of this new rule?  \nYes  \nPlease explain your answer  \nIf someone has failed a test to demonstrate competence it is correct that they should be required to carry out further studies and  \nsubsequently pass the necessary examination to demonstrate competence. This is clearly in both the interest of the profession and public interest.  \n3) Alongside this consultation we have published tracked change versions of the amendments we propose to make to our current regulations and the Principles for Qualified Lawyers. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed amendments would prevent a qualified lawyer who had failed any part of the SQE from being granted an exemption from that part?  \nAgree  \nPlease add any comments you would like to make:  \nChanges to the rules on Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) exemptions Response ID:31 Data  \n2. About you  \n\n| First name(s)\u003Cbr>Michael |\n| --- |\n| Last name\u003Cbr>Padua |\n| I am responding..\u003Cbr>on behalf of an organisation |\n| On behalf of what type of organisation?\u003Cbr>Law society |\n| Please enter the name of the society\u003Cbr>The Law Society of England and Wales |\n\nHow should we publish your response?  \nPlease select an option below.  \nPublish the response with my/our name  \n\n| 3. Consultation questions |\n| --- |\n| 1) To what extent do you agree that we should change our regulations and the principles for qualified lawyers to prevent qualified lawyers from being granted an exemption from an assessment that they have previously failed?\u003Cbr>Agree\u003Cbr>Please add any comments you would like to make:The Law Society agrees in principle that this change seems fair and the reasons provided are sound. An exemption assumes that on the basis of work experience or qualification, the qualified lawyer already has the required legal knowledge being tested in the SQE2 . By failing the SQE2 the qualifying lawyer has demonstrated that they do not in fact have the required legal knowledge to qualify as a solicitor. As noted, this should encourage the qualifying lawyer to pursue remedial training in order to pass the exam on another occasion. |\n\n2) Can you see any other impacts, either positive or negative, from the introduction of this new rule?  \nYes  \n\n| Please explain your answer\u003Cbr>It is likely that this change would impact only a small number of applicants-those qualified lawyers who chose to sit the SQE2 assessment prior to an SRA decision to exempt all qualified lawyers from that jurisdiction, or a qualified lawyer who chose to sit the SQE2 before having the required (2-year) level of work experience to obtain an individual exemption but then applied for an exemption after completing the required work experience.\u003Cbr>That said, we would urge the SRA to ensure that any changes implemented be fully compliant with any and all obligations under agreements the UK has or may have in the future with other ","cbCaieoGJOo8y0dh","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaieoGJOo8y0dh","pdf",203835,12,"English","# About you\n# Consultation questions","[{\"question\":\"Should the regulations be changed to prevent exemptions for qualified lawyers who previously failed an assessment?\",\"answer\":\"Respondents largely support changing the regulations so that exemption decisions do not allow qualified lawyers to avoid an assessment they have already failed.\"},{\"question\":\"What positive or negative impacts could result from the introduction of the new rule?\",\"answer\":\"Responses suggest the change would primarily affect a limited group of applicants and could encourage remedial training, while also raising the need to ensure compliance with relevant obligations across jurisdictions.\"},{\"question\":\"How should the proposed amendments address exemptions related to SQE parts that were failed?\",\"answer\":\"Responses range from agreeing to taking a neutral stance, with at least one view that failing an SQE part demonstrates insufficient knowledge requiring further study and resitting the exam.\"}]","Proposed Changes to the Rules on Solicitors Qualifying Examination Exemptions - Consultation Responses - April 2024 | PDF",1790035554]