(or, My Personal Experience of the QLTS’ Advocacy Section)
I wanted to write today about my personal experience with the oral Advocacy assessment administered by Kaplan.
As I’ve said (many times) before on this site, I wrote the QLTS (the “Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme”) – NOT the SQE. The QLTS was a precursor (of sorts) to the SQE, and it ran for about a decade before being replaced by the SQE. The QLTS was a different set of exams from the SQE – but the two have the same basic framework and many similarities (If you are interested, you can read more about the similarities and differences between the two tests).
For the second part of the QLTS, there were a number of different oral assessments. One was interviewing and counseling – during which you had to interview a client and take down information for a subsequent attendance note. Another was an oral advice portion – during which candidates were given a “client’s” legal problem (and some prep time) and were then put in a room with a client actor to “advise” the client on the legal position (I understand that this station is no longer part of SQE2). Lastly, there was an Advocacy assessment – during which you would be given either a civil matter or a criminal matter*, some prep time, and then have to make oral submissions before an assessor.
Here is my first person account of the Advocacy assessment, as I recall it. (Please note that I am writing only about my own experience – and this was a few years ago now. While I think my reflections may be helpful to readers preparing for the Advocacy portion of the SQE, I can’t say for certain that everything I mention here is applicable to your situation in any upcoming SQE2. Please keep this in mind and double-check the SRA’s Assessment Specification for SQE2).
*Unlike for the SQE, there was only one Advocacy assessment in the QLTS – and candidates received either a civil law or criminal law matter on exam day.
Advocacy Prep To Do Before SQE2
Prior to test day, while preparing for the Advocacy station, you’ll obviously want to think about what applications you’re likely to be asked to make and prepare a skeleton outline for these in advance.
I’ve said this before (for example, in this article on the Interview portion of SQE2), and will say again, that I really think it’s helpful to have a skeleton structure in mind – outlining what it is you want to say (generally) in each of your oral assessments. I believe this can save you time – and precious mental bandwidth – on a busy and stressful day (during a busy and stressful task). I found my memorized outline to be especially helpful during the Advocacy assessment.
During the QLTS-days conventional wisdom was that, if candidates were to be given a criminal task for Advocacy, it was likely to involve one of the following things: a. speaking to venue, b. speaking to bail, or c. speaking to sentencing / making a plea in mitigation. This being the case, I mentally prepared for each of these scenarios.
Exam Day and Your Pre-Assessment Prep for Advocacy
I generally enjoyed learning about criminal law and procedure while studying for the QLTS. I’m not a criminal lawyer (and I have no crime experience), but I thought that I had understood the content pretty well when I was revising.
Fast forward to the day of the Advocacy exam, it turned out that… my cohort of test writers got a criminal problem for Advocacy. While I had thought I was well prepared, when I saw the instructions we were given, any confidence I’d had evaporated. What they were asking us to do had me somewhat confused (and more than a little panicked). It seemed like they were asking us to speak to two different things (like they had given us a two-in-one or something) – and the sheer volume of material we had to read through was intimidating.
During the QLTS’ other oral assessments, I generally felt that we were given ample time to read and prepare before we presented. However, for this criminal Advocacy station, there was a lot of information to get through (and what seemed like very little time!). There were multiple witness statements, police notes, lists of prior convictions, sentencing guidelines, etc. (I’m a native English speaker, and I think I can read pretty quickly, but trust me when I say that it was a lot of information). I found myself getting quite stressed because, one, I didn’t quite know how to approach the submission and, two, I didn’t know how I was meant to get through all of the background material they had given us.
In the end, I found that having my skeleton outlines really saved me. I was able to write down a basic submission framework from two(ish) of the mental outlines I’d prepared. Just getting something on paper helped calm me down and get the juices flowing. I was then able to go through the mountains of paper that we were provided and slot relevant information into my outline. It really, really, helped. In fact I think it saved me, by helping me to organize my thoughts (and at least get started) when I could easily have become too nervous to perform.
Go Time! Making Your Oral Submissions to The Adjudicator
Again, I found that the prep-period for criminal Advocacy really flew by – and I would have liked more time to prepare. But when time was up, it was up – and soon we were all taken to our individual assessment rooms with our individual assessors. (Well actually, we were taken to our rooms, but made to wait outside. It actually looked a lot like the stock photo shared with this post – just with more space between candidates. There was a chair outside every assessment room and we all sat nervously, in our little suits, waiting to be “summoned”).
When the assessor asked me to enter, I took the written notes I had prepared inside and placed them in front of me (I believe there may have been a lectern or a stand, but I can’t remember exactly. Maybe it was just a desk or table?) Anyway, I seem to think that I was standing with the assessor a few feet in front of me.
I then made my application trying to speak as clearly and naturally as I could, while being “engaging” and maintaining good(ish) eye contact – rather than just reading from my paper. I remember that when I was finished I then got some questions from the assessor – which I did my best to answer.
One thing I should say here is that, when I wrote the QLTS, no one really knew anything about how the various assessments were graded**. It was all a bit of a mystery, and it made all of the assessments quite nerve-wracking. When it came to Advocacy in particular, nobody knew how the assessor was going to “behave”. (Would it be like a competitive moot? Were they going to play devil’s advocate? Attack your line of reasoning?)
The impression I had during my Advocacy assessment (and this is only my impression) was that the assessor had some sort of grading sheet in front of them, and they were listening to you and going through their sheet and ticking off pertinent legal, and ethical, points as you address them. I believe this is mostly what they are there to do in the Advocacy section. In my experience, they were not there to be confrontational, or to challenge you, or to poke holes in your arguments***. Rather, they were there to listen and check off points covered. Then at the end, where I had missed any points on the assessment sheet – the assessor then asked questions which specifically addressed these missing points. (Taking questions can be stressful, but in the QLTS, I saw it as an opportunity. i.e. My assessor was circling back and giving me a chance to address things that I had not addressed earlier – and helping me get marks I would not have gotten otherwise).
I know another foreign-qualified lawyer who had a sort of similar experience with questions during his QLTS Advocacy test. This lawyer was quite an experienced civil litigator (with practice experience both in London and in his home jurisdiction). For Advocacy, he luckily got a civil problem. As this was familiar territory for him, I presume he performed quite well – so well in fact that he told me that the assessor had no questions for him. Again, I take this to mean that once a candidate has covered every “proficiency” point on the assessor’s grading page, they don’t really have anything else to say or to ask you (and your assessment can then end early).
**The grading criteria for QLTS Advocacy were unknowns, but I believe the SRA has become much more transparent regarding how SQE2 is marked. I have not looked into this at all, but I would encourage you again to review any and all current assessment guidance (and then follow it! Obviously 🙂)
***This isn’t to say that an assessor won’t interrupt you. They are free to ask questions at any point during your submissions (though mine didn’t ask me anything until the end).
Concluding Thoughts on This Part of SQE2 Oral
I hope that this post is helpful for you. Again, I took the QLTS awhile ago – and it was a different exam than the SQE. I can’t say for sure that everything I’ve spoken about will be exactly relevant to your experience during SQE2, so you may wish to take the above with a grain of salt.
Good luck!
_ _ _
Best,
Lawyer in London