The SRA released their report for the SQE1 sitting in July 2025 earlier this month, providing a detailed overview of candidate performance.
The figures make for challenging reading: the overall pass rate dropped to 41%, the lowest since the assessment was introduced. First-time test-takers achieved a slightly higher pass rate of 46%, but this remains well below previous sittings. For a professional gateway exam, these results highlight serious concerns around fairness and accessibility. This report offers important insights into the outcomes of the July 2025 SQE1 assessments.
The SQE1 is composed of two Functioning Legal Knowledge exams (FLK1 and FLK2). These assessments are designed to test aspiring solicitors' knowledge across various practice areas. To successfully pass SQE1, candidates must achieve a passing score in both FLK1 and FLK2. This article highlights key data from the SRA's latest statistical report.
Pass rates summary
In the July 2025 SQE1 sitting, 6,265 candidates sat FLK1, and 6,482 sat FLK2. Overall, 5,896 candidates sat both parts of the SQE1 assessment. The overall pass rate for all candidates was 41%, with first-time candidates achieving a slightly higher pass rate of 46%.
When looking at the individual exams:
- FLK1 pass rate: 51%
- FLK2 pass rate: 48%
For first-time sitters:
- FLK1: 54%
- FLK2: 50%
It is unclear at the moment why this pass rate is so much lower than January’s pass rate. We have looked into the candidate profile for July’s sitting, and apart from the proportion of resitters, there is little difference between the proportion of candidates from different demographics, those with/without QWE.
Summary
This report provides a breakdown of candidate performance split by demographic, ethnic groups and socio-economic factors, sourced from the SRA’s SQE1 statistical report (add link).
Persistent disparities in pass rates among ethnic groups, gender, and socio-economic background remain a concern. While the SRA has committed to reviewing the assessment, data from July shows that candidates from underrepresented groups continue to face challenges that may not be reflected purely by preparation or ability.
The report highlights the influence of socio-economic and educational background on candidate outcomes. As a College dedicated to widening access to the legal profession, we understand the importance of providing tailored support to students from all walks of life, helping them navigate and overcome potential obstacles.
Pass rates: diversity and demographics
The report provides detailed insight into how different demographic groups performed in July, and it is vital that we pay close attention to these trends.
University degree classification
- First-class degree: 67%
- 2:1 degree: 46%
- 2:2 degree: 19%
Academic achievement remains a strong predictor of performance, with higher degree classifications associated with higher pass rates.
However, it should be noted that all these pass rates are on average x% lower than January’s pass rates for the same degree classification – so what else is happening here, as this measure was seen to be a clear indicator that academic ability was the biggest indicator of likelihood to pass SQE1? We would like the SRA to look into this and understand what else is behind this differential.
Ethnicity
- White candidates: 55% pass rate
- Asian/Asian British candidates: 39%
- Black/Black British candidates: 28%
- Mixed/multiple ethnic groups: 51%
- Prefer not to say: 45%
The gap between white candidates and those from ethnic minority backgrounds persists and has widened in some areas, underlining the ongoing challenge of supporting diverse candidates.
Religion
- Buddhist: 45% pass rate
- Christian: 41%
- Hindu: 33%
- Jewish: 71%
- Muslim: 29%
- Sikh: 29%
- No religion or belief: 56%
Significant differences remain between candidates of different religions, with some groups performing notably below the overall pass rate. These disparities highlight that certain groups may face additional barriers to success in SQE1, whether in access to preparation resources, exam design, or wider socio-economic factors.
Sex
- Male candidates: 49% pass rate
- Female candidates: 43%
While overall performance declined for both groups, the persistent gender gap indicates that outcomes are influenced by more than individual preparation.
Disability
- Disabled candidates: 46% pass rate
- Non-disabled candidates: 45%
The parity between disabled and non-disabled candidates is encouraging, though both groups’ performance is significantly below January 2025 levels.
Age
- 16–24 years: 48% pass rate
- 25–34 years: 47% pass rate
- 35–44 years: 38% pass rate
Pass rates tend to decrease with age, consistent with trends observed in previous sittings.
Socio-economic background
- Independent/fee-paying school: 56%
- State-funded/non-selective school: 44%
- Parents attended university: 51%
- Parents did not attend university: 41%
Candidates from more advantaged backgrounds continue to outperform their peers, highlighting the influence of socio-economic factors on outcomes.
Legal experience
- 51% of candidates had undertaken Qualifying Work Experience (QWE): pass rate 47%
- 48% of candidates hadn’t undertaken any QWE: pass rate 44%
- 34% were qualified lawyers: pass rate 42%
- 66% were not qualified lawyers: pass rate 47%
While experience can be valuable, July’s results suggest it does not necessarily translate into higher SQE1 scores.
Is it time for a review of the SQE1 assessment?
The July 2025 SQE1 results make one thing clear: the assessment is due for serious reflection. When pass rates continue to decline, and the data consistently shows gaps by background and opportunity, it’s no longer enough to attribute outcomes solely to candidate preparation.
That’s why the SRA’s announcement of a forthcoming technical review is both timely and necessary. The review, expected to begin later this year, will examine how SQE1 is structured, delivered, and whether it truly serves its intended purpose as a fair measure of competence.
At The College of Legal Practice, we welcome this move. Having supported thousands of candidates through both SQE1 and SQE2, we’ve seen how dedicated and capable aspiring solicitors are, and how structural factors can stand in their way. This review offers a real chance to strengthen the SQE’s foundations, improve accessibility, and ensure the pathway to qualification reflects ability, not advantage.