On 11 September 2026 the Solicitors Regulation Authority announced that, from January 2027, the SQE1 will contain fewer questions. The amendment modifies the SQE framework originally set out in the SRA’s 2021 regulations. Prospective solicitors and training providers will face a shorter exam, altering preparation timelines. The change clarifies the regulator’s response to longstanding criticism of the assessment’s length.

Full News Breakdown

The revision was prompted by a series of formal complaints from candidates and training organisations alleging that the volume of questions in SQE1 created undue pressure and limited the ability to demonstrate competence. The SRA consulted widely and concluded that a reduction would better align the assessment with its intended standards. The regulator issued an amendment to the SQE regulations reducing the total number of questions.

• Regulating Body: Solicitors Regulation Authority

• Instrument: Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) Regulations 2021

• Amendment Date: 11 September 2026

• Effective Date: January 2027

• Primary Legal Issue: Scope of SQE1 question count

• Applicant Arguments: Candidates argued that the number of questions was excessive and hindered fair assessment.

• Respondent Arguments: The SRA argued that the existing format ensured comprehensive testing of knowledge.

• Holding: The SRA amended the regulations to reduce the question count.

• Operative Order: SQE1 will contain fewer questions as set out in the amendment.

• Practical Outcome: Candidates will sit a shorter exam from January 2027.

How Does This Affect You?

Before the amendment, training providers and candidates operated under uncertainty about exam length, complicating curriculum design and budgeting. The amendment resolves that uncertainty by fixing the question count at a lower level. This enables streamlined preparation programmes and more efficient allocation of study time. The three audience sections below explore the concrete implications.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• The reduced question pool suggests redesigning client‑focused SQE preparation programmes so that study‑materials target the revised breadth of knowledge.

• Engagement letters with trainee clients are likely to incorporate the new timeline for exam preparation, which impacts fee structures and milestones.

• The amendment serves as persuasive authority for advising other regulators or professional bodies on proportional assessment design, demonstrating that the SRA can modify substantive exam components without legislative amendment.

• The shortened exam accelerates qualification, allowing earlier deployment of junior solicitors and affecting workforce planning for corporate legal departments sponsoring trainees.

• Forthcoming SRA guidance on weighting and content distribution will be critical, as the reduction creates a residual risk that certain competencies receive less coverage than before.

For Law Students

The case illustrates regulators balancing proportionality and fairness in professional qualification assessments. The core doctrinal focus is the principle of reasonableness in regulatory design.

The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:

• Professional Conduct and Regulation

• Legal Education Policy

• Administrative Law – judicial review of regulatory actions

• Assessment Design and Psychometrics

• Comparative Qualification Systems

Comparable judgments include R (on the application of UNISON) v. Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, which examined proportionality in fee regulation, and R (on the application of Miller) v. The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41, which explored limits on executive discretion. Comparing them highlights how courts assess whether a regulator’s procedural changes are justified and proportionate.

For Businesses

• Revising curriculum outlines and marketing materials to reflect the shorter SQE1 reduces the risk of misleading prospective students for law schools and commercial training providers.

• Talent‑pipeline forecasts for corporate legal departments will likely require reassessment, as the reduced exam duration brings junior solicitors into practice earlier than previously modelled.

• Candidate‑screening timelines for recruitment firms will need adjustment to align offers with the new exam schedule, avoiding gaps in placement.

• Internal policies on sponsorship of trainees will require updating to incorporate the amendment, helping compliance teams avoid breaches of SRA sponsorship obligations.

Key Takeaways

• The SRA’s amendment establishes that the SQE1 question count is now fixed at a lower level, removing previous ambiguity about exam length.

• Training providers will likely redesign study programmes and client agreements to align with the reduced question pool.

• The regulator can now alter substantive assessment components without seeking primary legislation, limiting judicial review to procedural fairness.

• The SRA’s forthcoming guidance on question weighting and content distribution, expected in mid‑2027, will clarify how the reduction affects competency coverage.

• In‑house counsel will need to review and update trainee sponsorship policies before 1 January 2027 to ensure compliance with the new framework.