Suella Braverman’s recent comments labelling junior lawyers as “snowflakes” have ignited a fierce debate within the UK legal profession, centring on whether the current Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) system discriminates against candidates from diverse backgrounds and learning styles. This controversy unfolded as hundreds of trainee solicitors signed a petition asserting that the exams favour privileged demographics and exact a heavy toll on mental health, mirroring widespread concerns about the accessibility and fairness of legal qualifications. The exchange has laid bare the cultural divide over meritocracy, social mobility, and what qualities the legal sector truly values.
The Origins of the Controversy
The debate began when a trainee solicitor at an international law firm initiated a petition demanding the reform of the SQE, describing it as “disproportionately challenging” and detrimental to the well-being of candidates from less advantaged backgrounds. The petition quickly gained traction, attracting nearly 900 signatures, and argued that the exam structure unfairly favours certain socioeconomic groups and learning styles. Petitioners highlighted several issues, including:
- High financial costs of sitting the SQE
- Lack of practice papers and realistic exam preparation resources
- Barriers to physical comfort, such as restricted access to water during some test sessions
- A disconnect between exam questions and real-world legal practice
Supporters pointed to stark pass-rate disparities: recent statistics showed that 70% of white candidates passed the exams compared to only 49% of Asian and 37% of black candidates, with lower performance among women and working-class students, implying the system’s design perpetuates existing inequalities.
Suella Braverman’s Critique
Suella Braverman, barrister and former Home Secretary, responded resolutely in her column for The Telegraph, characterising campaigners as “snowflakes” unable to accept the rigour and standards traditionally expected of the legal profession. According to Suella Braverman:
- The petition represented “entitlement infecting the corridors of legal ambition,” undermining excellence and integrity.
- She argued that demanding easier exams was a refusal to accept personal responsibility, stating: “We didn’t do well, and it must be someone else’s fault.”
- Suella Braverman positioned rigour and intellectual discipline as non-negotiable traits of British lawyers and rebuked calls for reform as symptomatic of a generational shift toward lowered expectations.
Her remarks were met with both support and criticism, with some arguing she stood for maintaining high standards while others saw her comments as dismissive of real and systemic barriers.
Petitioners Respond: The Case Against “Snowflake” Stereotypes
The trainee solicitor behind the petition swiftly countered Suella Braverman’s critique, noting that nowhere in the petition did they claim the exams were “too hard”; rather, the argument centres on fairness and proportional challenge. Petitioners maintained that the SQE, while rigorous, should not shut out capable candidates solely because the test favours certain learning styles or backgrounds. They further pointed out:
- Financial strain and lack of support disproportionately affect those without family wealth or professional networks.
- The exam’s opaque structure and lack of preparation resources breed anxiety and disadvantage neurodivergent and minority candidates.
- Advocacy for reform was not a call for “dumbing down” but for inclusivity and better alignment with real-world legal competence.
Most notably, the response emphasised that a true meritocracy arises from giving all candidates an equal chance, rather than maintaining barriers that privilege a subset of applicants.
Institutional Response and Broader Implications
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which oversees the SQE, acknowledged the concerns raised by candidates about the exam’s difficulty, cost, and disparate outcomes. The SRA outlined steps taken to ensure questions reflect the required standards expected of qualified solicitors and noted their ongoing review into differential outcomes across ethnicity, gender, and background. Pass rates and statistics continue to be published, and research is underway to understand and address the root causes of bias.
The debate has sparked a wider discussion within the legal community and beyond:
- Meritocracy vs. Inclusion: Is it possible to maintain standards while broadening access to the profession? Many argue that high-stakes tests should measure ability, not privilege.
- Mental Health and Wellbeing: Candidates have reported significant emotional and financial strain, raising questions about whether exam structures can be improved without reducing standards.
- Changing Definition of Excellence: Should legal excellence be defined by traditional academic performance, or should practical skills and diverse experiences be better recognised?
Social and Political Reactions
Suella Braverman’s comments drew a mixed reception; some traditionalists and commentators praised her “war against mediocrity,” insisting that legal professionals should be of the highest calibre, no matter the personal cost. Others saw her remarks as emblematic of out-of-touch elitism, ignoring the evidence that the SQE and similar assessments are failing to draw a genuinely representative pool of future solicitors.
The public debate has highlighted contrasting views on social mobility and attitudes toward the challenges faced by aspiring professionals. Commentary on social media and in the press has ranged from defending the current system’s standards to calling for more radical reform.
