u/LawMate25

Congratulations to everyone that has completed the written exams. If you're feeling tired and drained that is completely normal (those DVLA test centres really suck the life out of you). I wanted to wish everyone luck with the oral exams and make sure everyone takes a break before getting back into revising. If you're looking for some light reading I've shared some tips from when I sat SQE2 last year.

On interviewing, something that really helped was remembering that you control the pace. If the client is moving faster than you can write, just ask them to pause. You can't carry interview time into the attendance note so getting your notes clear during the session really matters. The legal analysis goes in the attendance note afterwards, so that's where you want to focus your energy when the interview is done.

For advocacy, knowing the tests properly before you go in made a big difference. Not just a vague familiarity but actually knowing them cold. It gives you a clear structure to build your submissions around, which makes the whole thing feel much more manageable. Write the relevant test at the top of your prep notes first, then work through the documents and find the evidence that satisfies it.

On handling the documents, rather than copying chunks into your notes, just number the key sections and put the corresponding number in your plan at the point where you'll need to refer to it. Mid-submission you can direct the judge straight to the relevant paragraph, which keeps things flowing and gives you a moment to get there yourself.

I've put together a longer breakdown of both exams here: SQE2 Oral Assessments Start Soon: Read This Before You Sit

Good luck to everyone sitting. Remember the pass rate and trust your prep!

The SRA publishes the criteria they use to mark Legal Drafting — including specifically what failure looks like. I'm surprised how many people don't read them.

They don't just tell you what competence looks like, they tell you exactly what failure looks like too. And a few things caught me off guard.

On language: I'd assumed this PI was just "write clearly." It's not. Both extremes fail — too wordy and confusing, but also too sparse. The SRA explicitly says if the meaning can't be understood because there are too few words, that's also a fail. The target is as few words as possible without compromising quality.

It is the same with formality: too casual fails, but so does unnecessary jargon. They flag "unnecessary technical terms/legal jargon throughout" as a specific failure indicator. Formal, plain, precise — not legalese.

On structure: The SRA mentions "appropriate sign posts" as a competence indicator. Headings, numbered clauses, defined terms — they're not cosmetic, they're part of what's being assessed. And the document needs to "achieve its purpose." You can produce something technically well-organised that still doesn't function properly as a document. That's a PI 2 failure.

On legally correct: This is two layers, not one. Getting the law right is the obvious one. The other is whether the document is legally effective at a basic level. Check both layers.

On legally comprehensive: This is where I think most marks are quietly dropped. "Comprehensive" means sufficient for this specific client's situation — not just the headline instruction. And the ethics element within this PI requires you to actually resolve any SRA Principle issue, not just notice it. Identifying a conflict and then drafting on regardless doesn't satisfy this PI.

The thing that helped shift my practice when I sat was using the four PIs as an explicit review checklist after every draft — rather than just comparing to the model answer. Much more useful feedback loop.

I put together a more detailed breakdown here — "How to Pass SQE2 Legal Drafting: A Guide to What the SRA Are Looking For".

See the PIs SRA PDF. I'd recommend giving both a read.

Good luck to everyone sitting soon