Normal
1) It’s just being non committal. The last thing they want is to bring in a whole load of trainees on the SQE and then for some random reason bring in a trainee on a LPC training contract (maybe mitigating circumstances) and everyone else to complain why they didn’t get that opportunity. I can’t really see firms offering the LPC route any more though - it’s a lot more hassle for them as there are many more regulations and processes they have to go through. I don’t know what angle there would be for arguing against completing SQE2 when everyone else is doing that stage, and especially where some of the diversity concerns with the SQE are much more associated with SQE1.2) Firms generally don’t want trainees submitting their previous experiences as QWE, as it undermines their training contract. Unfortunately firms have little control over it though as the decision lies with you rather than them.3) People are qualifying via the QWE/SQE route. But I am seeing plenty do people choosing to do this when they haven’t got an NQ role lined up. To be able to compete in the NQ job market, your two years of QWE needs to be of the same level, complexity, standard, variety and possible even with the same type of clients as those you will be competing for the NQ role with. You are not going to be able to step into a litigation role without litigation experience. You are going to struggle to get into large international firms if most of the litigation work you have done is with smaller, domestic companies or simple disputes. You therefore have to make sure your QWE allows you to compete for the jobs you are aiming for upon qualification.
1) It’s just being non committal. The last thing they want is to bring in a whole load of trainees on the SQE and then for some random reason bring in a trainee on a LPC training contract (maybe mitigating circumstances) and everyone else to complain why they didn’t get that opportunity. I can’t really see firms offering the LPC route any more though - it’s a lot more hassle for them as there are many more regulations and processes they have to go through. I don’t know what angle there would be for arguing against completing SQE2 when everyone else is doing that stage, and especially where some of the diversity concerns with the SQE are much more associated with SQE1.
2) Firms generally don’t want trainees submitting their previous experiences as QWE, as it undermines their training contract. Unfortunately firms have little control over it though as the decision lies with you rather than them.
3) People are qualifying via the QWE/SQE route. But I am seeing plenty do people choosing to do this when they haven’t got an NQ role lined up. To be able to compete in the NQ job market, your two years of QWE needs to be of the same level, complexity, standard, variety and possible even with the same type of clients as those you will be competing for the NQ role with. You are not going to be able to step into a litigation role without litigation experience. You are going to struggle to get into large international firms if most of the litigation work you have done is with smaller, domestic companies or simple disputes. You therefore have to make sure your QWE allows you to compete for the jobs you are aiming for upon qualification.
