Post grad law conversions - reality of the usefulness of this?

[BobtheFrog]

One of my DDs is looking to a post grad degree, law conversion in particular - looking for some mumsnet wisdom about this route. Good idea? Concerns / questions we should consider? Does it lead to meaningful work? What kind of work is down this route?

The SQE is incredibly difficult - I know several people who have done both the LPC and SQE and have said the SQE is harder - so IMO there is no issue with 2.2 undergrad degree holders sitting the exam, albeit it could be difficult for them to secure a role afterwards (or indeed get to grips with the exams).

Indeed it would be great to have more granular statistics made public.

You must however know that this situation is absolutely the exception rather than the rule.

It is very difficult to pass SQE without having studied black letter law.

"The SQE is incredibly difficult - I know several people who have done both the LPC and SQE and have said the SQE is harder - so IMO there is no issue with 2.2 undergrad degree holders sitting the exam, albeit it could be difficult for them to secure a role afterwards (or indeed get to grips with the exams)."

The point I was making is that it is unfair to mislead applicants by accepting them onto the course if the chances of them getting a job are slim. There will of course be some people with a 2.2 who pass the SQE. That doesn't mean they will find it easy to get a job.

If graduation is next year does she have the 2.2 yet? If not I would strongly encourage her to do everything she can to push hard for a 2.1. It will make a material difference to job chances whether law or elsewhere.

I don’t lead the paralegal recruitment anymore, people more junior to me do, but we get SO very many applicants we typically would cut below a 2.1 absent an otherwise stunning CV.

SQE pass rates also correlate heavily to degree class - if you look here you’ll see candidates with a 1st had 67% pass rate and 2.2 19%.

sqe.sra.org.uk/docs/default-source/pdfs/reports/sqe1_jul2025_statsreport_final.pdf?sfvrsn=9538121d_3

It's also worth knowing that some types of learner are absolutely not suited to the SQE process. If you're the sort of person who does well in coursework but struggles in exams or you're the sort of person who can explain broad concepts but struggles with fine detail, you're basically screwed.

@Serafee Nearly 2000 wannabee barristers sit the bar course every year for 600 plus pupillages. Then there’s the unsuccessful candidates from previous years who have spent a year or two years building up their cv. Courses and jobs never match.

I'm sure it wasn't your intention (which seem generally to be to argue with anyone with actual knowledge of the legal profession) but yes, exactly.

However 1 in three (or even ten times that) is far, far better than the odds for training contracts.

@Serafee good luck to him and I honestly can’t think of anything else he could add to his cv. I think plan to have a year out and work at securing a tc if he’s unsuccessful this round is the right thing to do and it’s no reflection on him just how competitive the market is.
What is happening is excellent candidates like your son are unable to secure a tc and so turn attention to smaller firms or less attractive areas of law and candidates with a 2.1 from ex poly and a bit of work experience who may have got interviewed in old days can’t even get foot in door as they pale in comparison to the top quality applicants.
Given low chance of passing SQE with a 2.2 and virtually nil chance of getting a training contract and low prospect of securing paralegal work I do think providers should be limited to accepting 2.1 and above but it’s obviously in their interests to take as many paying customers as they can. I do feel it’s taking money off them under false pretences, same as when low ranking ex polys have pictures of students dressed up as barristers on their websites, I’d hazard a guess zero graduates have actually been called to the bar from their law course.

A law conversion course is basically a law degree in a year. She will then need to do a LPC to become a solicitor or a BVC to become a barrister.

It is true that it is now possible to do the SQE instead. But at my place we no longer take people on without either a law degree or law conversion course because while very demanding, we don’t feel the SQE is good enough. They don’t read case law on the course! That skill is key to my type of work, but may be less so in other areas of law. Lots of places are fine with SQEs so I don’t want to steer you wrong. My view is that it isn’t sufficient to make really good solicitors in my line of work though.

We don’t discount 2:2s, and we do still look at what uni someone went to. Brutally - a 2:2 from some unis is worth a 2:1 from others. That does not mean we are Oxbridge fixated though - the dedication and experience someone has trumps all of that, and we have very a rigorous hiring process that involves two written tests and a difficult interview. Several Oxbridge candidates have done poorly on that, whereas candidates who attended less prestigious universities have done brilliantly.

She needs to think about what she really wants to do - solicitor or barrister, what area of law? And then she needs to get as much experience as possible (even related work, not just law) to make her stand out and do well in the recruitment process. It is hard to over emphasise how hard it is to get a start in law these days.

@LawType LPC is no longer an option for current undergraduates it’s only SQE now.

@Springisnearlyspring I thought it wouldn’t be abolished for a few more years?

I feel so strongly about how poor the SQE is, I wrote to the LS and SRA about it. And I know of training principals in other firms who did the same.

ETA - even if the LPC is no longer offered, it won’t change our stance that we will only hire paralegals with law degrees/law conversion courses.

There’s transitional arrangements but you need to have started your degree before 2021.

www.lawsociety.org.uk/career-advice/becoming-a-solicitor/solicitors-qualifying-examination-sqe/transitional-arrangements#:~:text=02%20Aug%202019,SQE%20route%20if%20they%20wish.

@LawType i’d agree with you that most most firms and organisations still want the legal qualification (law degree or law conversion) not just SQE. Govt legal still requires it for trainees.
A couple of examples on here of people passing with no legal qualification but it’s highly unusual.

The vast majority of firms still want their trainees to have done the law conversion course. Quite frankly a lawyer who hasn't studied law formally isn't likely to be as useful as one who has.

The law conversion course is either a PGDL or an LLM. The LLM qualifies for masters funding, the PGDL doesn't. Most law firms who sponsor will sponsor the PGDL rather than an LLM.

You then have to do SQE 1 and SQE2 in order to qualify as a solicitor. It is no longer possible to start an LPC.

You can in theory do SQE1 and 2 without taking a law conversion course but that will basically require you to teach yourself the entirety of a law degree.

You can only take the SQE three times in a six year period. A significant number of firms will drop you if you are sponsored but you fail the SQE. In fact a significant number of firms ask you to formally declare that you have never had to resit any exam when you complete their application form.

For a non law graduate who isn't sponsored to complete law school it will cost c25k if they pass the SQE first time. That is why it is really silly to self fund law school.

Gosh this is so interesting, as my firm now favours SQE over LPC (regardless of a conversion course having been completed) on account of the fact it is more difficult.

I think that poster is getting confused and she means they prefer law conversion plus SQE to the SQE on its own (which is technically possible but rarely advisable).

The LPC is simply no longer an option.

The SQE is flawed in many ways but it's a consistent standard and so in that respect it is preferable to the old LPC which was different depending on where you did it and was often open book.

@Serafee I bow in your great presence! Is that deferential enough for you? Just accept it’s a conversation and people have different opinions.

I think BPP have a breakdown for their candidates between law and non law

I’ll have a look thanks.

You will have to take SQE candidates as the LPC is now only open to a restricted number of people based on when they started their studies and not generally available. So it is wrong to say she will have to take LPC to become a solicitor.

I’d also be wary jumping straight to SQE without a law degree or conversion in terms of future career prospects and perhaps ambitions for a judicial role etc. 99% of solicitors will have a legal qualification (law degree or conversion). Barristers still require a law degree or conversion.
I recall I needed to provide proof of my law degree not just practising cert for my current role and I’m over 25 years PQE.

This is most definitely an interesting watch

https://www.legalcheek.com/lc-careers-posts/watch-now-a-deep-dive-into-sqe-pass-rates/

It may be in the video link I just posted. I remember seeing it somewhere because my son is doing pgdl .

Thanks I can’t see it from a quick search it might be in video.

BPP pass rates are higher but they are the preferred provider for lots of city firms so will be top calibre candidates sitting via them.

www.practiceworks.io/lawdrills/research/sqe1-pass-rates-comparison/#:~:text=Table_title:%20Comparison%20of%20SQE1%20prep%20provider%20pass,Engagement%20Threshold:%2090%25+%20study%20plan%20completion%20%7C

Even in the 90s when I graduated it wasn't advised to pursue a law career unless you had a 2:1 or above. Competition is even fiercer now.