Barriers to entry in the legal sector

The legal profession has long been perceived as an exclusive field, with barriers to entry disproportionately affecting individuals from less advantaged backgrounds. While these challenges are not unique to the legal sector, they have been particularly pronounced due to the profession’s traditionally elitist structures and the high costs associated with qualification. In recent years, regulatory bodies, law firms, and policymakers have recognised these disparities and have taken steps to improve accessibility. However, concerns remain regarding whether these efforts are sufficient in addressing systemic barriers.

The Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE), introduced by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in 2021, was designed to standardise the qualification process for aspiring solicitors in England and Wales. The SQE replaced the previous system, which required candidates to complete the Legal Practice Course (LPC) and secure a training contract before qualifying. This reform was intended to create a more flexible and cost-effective route into the profession. While the SQE has brought about certain benefits, there are persistent concerns regarding its accessibility, particularly for candidates from lower socio-economic and ethnic minority backgrounds.

Financial Barriers and the Equality Act 2010

A significant challenge posed by the SQE is the financial burden it places on candidates. The cost of sitting the SQE1 and SQE2 exams, combined with preparatory courses and study materials, can amount to several thousand pounds. While the SQE was initially introduced as a cost-saving alternative to the Legal Practice Course (LPC), many argue that in practice, the total expenses remain prohibitively high for lower-income candidates. This has led to renewed debates about affordability and fairness in legal education.

Under the Equality Act 2010, indirect discrimination occurs when a policy, though seemingly neutral, disproportionately disadvantages individuals from certain protected groups, such as those defined by race, socio-economic background, or disability. If financial barriers prevent ethnic minority candidates or individuals from lower-income backgrounds from qualifying as solicitors at the same rate as others, there is a legal argument that the SRA could be failing in its duty to promote equality and remove structural disadvantages.

A key aspect of this debate is the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires public authorities, including regulatory bodies like the SRA, to actively assess and address disparities caused by their policies. The lack of widespread financial assistance or scholarship schemes for disadvantaged candidates raises concerns about whether the SRA has adequately fulfilled its legal obligations under this provision. This issue could potentially be subject to legal challenge if disparities persist.

Differential Attainment and Regulatory Oversight

Beyond financial barriers, differential attainment rates among ethnic minority candidates highlight a broader challenge within the legal profession. Data from the SRA’s most recent report on the SQE1 pass rates revealed that only 31 percent of Black/Black British candidates passed the examination, compared to 54 percent of White candidates. Similar disparities have been observed in other professional qualification exams, prompting discussions about systemic disadvantages and access to high-quality preparation resources.

From a legal perspective, Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of rights, including access to professional qualifications. While the SQE is not a state-administered exam, its regulatory framework places it under legal scrutiny regarding equality obligations. If the assessment system disproportionately impacts ethnic minority candidates without sufficient remedial measures in place, it could lead to future legal challenges.

These disparities also raise policy concerns about the effectiveness of the SQE in truly creating a level playing field. Critics argue that, while the SQE removed the requirement for a training contract in certain pathways, it does not inherently eliminate structural barriers—particularly since law firms retain full discretion in hiring decisions. Consequently, simply passing the SQE does not guarantee career progression, especially for those without access to professional networks.

The Perception of Meritocracy and Unconscious Bias in Recruitment

The legal profession has historically been regarded as elitist, with career advancement often influenced by factors beyond merit, such as socio-economic background, university attended, and networking opportunities. Even with the introduction of the SQE, unconscious bias in recruitment remains a major barrier to diversity in law.

A study by The Bridge Group, commissioned by the SRA, found that ethnic minority candidates were significantly less likely to secure training contracts compared to their White counterparts, even when their academic achievements were equivalent. This finding underscores the limitations of the SQE as a standalone reform and suggests that additional regulatory interventions may be required.

To mitigate unconscious bias, some law firms have adopted blind recruitment practices, removing identifying details such as name and university from applications. While such initiatives have shown promise, they remain voluntary rather than industry-wide requirements. A broader conversation about diversity hiring obligations within legal firms is still needed.

Addressing Structural Barriers and Potential Legal Challenges

Despite recent efforts to improve accessibility, ethnic minority candidates, particularly Black and South Asian individuals, continue to face multiple challenges in entering the legal profession. Some key structural barriers include:

• Lack of Representation in Law Firms – According to The Law Society’s 2022 Diversity Profile Report, 23 percent of solicitors in England and Wales are from ethnic minority backgrounds, yet they remain underrepresented in the most prestigious firms and in senior positions.
• Limited Access to High-Quality Preparation Resources – Candidates from lower-income backgrounds may struggle to afford commercial SQE preparation courses, leading to disparities in pass rates.
• Potential for Legal Challenges – If these issues remain unresolved, future legal challenges under the Equality Act 2010 could arise, particularly regarding recruitment bias and the failure to implement reasonable adjustments for disadvantaged candidates.

Recent Efforts to Improve Accessibility

Recognising these challenges, the SRA has introduced new initiatives aimed at supporting disadvantaged candidates. In March 2025, the SRA launched the SQE Access and Reinvestment Fund, a £360,000 scheme designed to help organisations cover SQE entry fees for underprivileged candidates. This initiative represents a step forward in reducing financial barriers, but questions remain about its long-term impact.

Additionally, the Bar Council released a report in December 2024 calling for mandatory equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) training for barristers, alongside specialist race awareness training. Law firms have also started to introduce legal apprenticeships, which provide an alternative to traditional university-based qualification routes.

While these initiatives are positive, there is still no industry-wide mandate requiring firms to actively participate in social mobility schemes. This lack of enforcement means that accessibility efforts vary significantly across firms.

Conclusion

While the SQE represents a significant step towards a more standardised and flexible qualification process, it does not fully address the underlying barriers faced by candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds. The financial burden, differential attainment rates, unconscious bias in recruitment, and lack of representation continue to hinder diversity in the legal profession.

It shows the importance of regulatory bodies complying with the Equality Act 2010, particularly in preventing indirect discrimination. Law firms must also critically assess their recruitment practices to go beyond surface-level diversity initiatives. Expanding financial assistance, improving mentorship programmes, and enforcing diversity hiring obligations could create a fairer and more inclusive legal profession.

Moving forward, policymakers and industry leaders must work together to dismantle systemic barriers and ensure that talent, not background, determines success in the legal sector.

Copyright & permissions