Site map | Contact us

Equality and diversity

Full impact assessment

Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme

Business unit: Education and Training Unit
Publication date:  April 2010

Glossary

Day One Outcomes

are the outcomes(PDF 3 pages 48K) which all lawyers are expected to have met at the point of qualification

Qualified Lawyer

is a legal qualification which satisfies the criteria set out in the update to paragraph 4

Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test (QLTT)

means the tests which some lawyers are required to pass under the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Regulations 1990 and 2009

Qualified Lawyers Transfer Regulations (QLTR)

means the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Regulations 1990 and 2009

Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS)

is the scheme that will replace the QLTR and QLTT

Recognised Jurisdiction

is a jurisdiction which satisfies the criteria set out in paragraph 4

PART 1 – Overview

The policy as a whole deals with the regulatory requirements to provide international lawyers with a "fast-track" route to admission as a solicitor of England and Wales as an alternative to the domestic route.

Current regulatory requirements

The Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test (QLTT) route to qualification is currently available to people who are qualified as lawyers in, and are citizens of, EU member states, together with lawyers who have qualified in a number of named jurisdictions in which the legal system is based on the common law and to barristers, solicitors and advocates qualified in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

People who are eligible to qualify in this way are required to pass between one and four of the examinations that make up the QLTT, unless they are granted a total exemption from all exams. UK and international (non-EU) applicants are also required to satisfy an experience requirement of up to two years.

The subjects which make up the QLTT are

• Professional conduct and accounts,
• Litigation,
• Property, and
• Principles of Common Law.

Aims and objectives

Lawyers who have not qualified as solicitors in England and Wales can practise in England and Wales in a variety of ways, as registered European Lawyers (RELs), registered foreign lawyers (RFLs) or under the title of their home jurisdiction. It is also possible for them to requalify through the domestic route. The QLTS provides eligible lawyers who wish to have full practising rights, with a fast-track route to admission as a solicitor in England and Wales.

The primary focus of this scheme is to establish parity with the domestic route to qualification. All applicants will be assessed against the same set of standards and, unless they are granted any exemptions from individual assessments by virtue of EU legislation or because they have qualified within the UK, will be required to take the same assessments.

As this is a new scheme with new mechanisms for recognising jurisdictions and new means of assessment, we will not know how the new proposals will impact on various groups. This is therefore an equality impact assessment (EIA) where we have tried to identify potential impact. We will put in a robust monitoring mechanism to help us assess any adverse impact of the scheme. We have also consulted widely, and considered the feedback we have received in this EIA.

The aims of the policy are

• to provide assurance to consumers and other stakeholders that solicitors who have been admitted via the transfer route have been assessed as competent to practise,
• to protect the client and public interest, and
• to ensure the effective administration of justice and the rule of law.

The objectives are to introduce a transfer scheme that

• is based on the same standards of knowledge, skills and ability that are required of those who follow the domestic route to qualification,
• is based on the same test of character and suitability that is used to assess those following the domestic route to qualification,
• recognises that qualified lawyers who are eligible to apply under the transfer scheme should have already demonstrated by way of their home qualification scheme the core knowledge and skills needed of all lawyers,
• assesses the ability of applicants to apply their knowledge and skills in the context of English/Welsh law and legal practice,
• is open to lawyers qualified in a larger number and wider range of jurisdictions than is currently the case,
• recognises the obligations on members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to afford no less favourable treatment to some WTO members than others, and
• recognises the obligations on EU member states to facilitate the free movement of individual citizens
• offers a fair and transparent system for qualified lawyers to apply for full practising rights free from unlawful discrimination

How are these objectives achieved?

• Through the setting of assessments to test the competence of candidates against the same Day One Outcomes as domestic applicants are assessed against prior to qualification
• Through the abolition of exemptions from particular assessments (although specific requirements will apply to EU and intra-UK lawyers)
• By contracting with one third-party assessment provider to provide assessments and the quality assurance by the SRA of this provider
• By working with other parts of the SRA to ensure that the character and suitability checks are robust and equivalent to those conducted prior to admission via the domestic route. The SRA's role in carrying out character and suitability checks is to ensure that an individual admitted as a solicitor has the level of honesty, integrity and professionalism expected by the public and other stakeholders, as well as other members of the profession, and does not pose a risk to the public or the profession.

Who are the key stakeholders?

• All international lawyers, barristers from England and Wales, and UK lawyers who want to become admitted as a solicitor of England and Wales and their employers, or potential employers.
• Consumers of legal Services
• Providers of QLTT assessments and potential providers of QLTS assessments
• General public

Consultation with stakeholders

There was a formal consultation which ran for just over 12 weeks from November 2008 to February 2009. We consulted on each of the proposals set out in detail below.

The consultation was published on the SRA website for a period of 12 weeks and was sent directly to key contacts at a range of equality groups and to key stakeholders including the Law Society and the Bar Standards Board. In addition around 2000 stakeholders who have registered to be alerted to consultations were emailed to notify them of the consultation.

The consultation included a specific question on the potential equality impact of the proposals to inform the development of the equality impact assessment.

There were 39 responses to the consultation. The respondents included the Law Societies of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Law Society of Ireland, the Law Council of Australia, local law societies, the Legal Services Commission, the Junior Lawyers Division, training organisations and a range of firms and individuals. We have received comments from some equality groups, including the SRA's External Implementation Group (made of representatives of black and minority ethnic groups) and the Society of Asian Lawyers. The issues and concerns raised in the consultation are dealt with below.

PART 2 – Proposed regulatory requirements

The proposed new scheme is objective, consistent and transparent. The scheme should enable the SRA to promote equality within the profession by opening the transfer scheme to applicants from a wider range of jurisdictions and by having a universal scheme of assessments which applicants will need to complete. Once the proposals are implemented, we will assess the impact of the scheme at each stage of development and monitor the impact of the scheme on new applicants during the first 12 months.

We have carefully considered the consultation responses in relation to each of the proposals and these are set out in more detail in the summary of responses.

The main issues arising from this equality impact assessment relate to race, disability and age equality, and the impact section for each of the proposals set out below specifies in which equality area the impact has been identified. We have set out our findings in relation to the other equality areas separately and the end of this section.

1. Day One Outcomes

Proposal

The benchmark against which transferees should be assessed is the same as that applied to individuals at the time that they initially qualify under the domestic route to qualification, the Day One Outcomes. As some aspects of the Day One Outcomes can be assumed of all lawyers (i.e. intellectual, analytical and problem-solving skills ^- Day One Outcome B, and personal development and work management skills - Day One Outcome E), this means that all International Lawyer applicants will be tested on

• all the knowledge outcomes,
• solicitors' accounts, professional conduct, financial regulation
• property and probate
• litigation
• business law and practice
• contract and tort
• the English legal system, incorporating equitable rights, human rights and EU law
• transactional and dispute resolution skills,
• legal, professional and client relationship skills, and
• professional values, behaviours, attitudes and ethics.

All lawyers applying under the EU Directives or because they are UK Lawyers will be individually assessed to ascertain which of these outcomes they have already met.

Data considered

Consultation responses

Impact

Under the QLTR lawyers from certain (mainly Commonwealth) jurisdictions were exempt from some of the subjects. There will no longer be any exemptions available for non-EEA lawyers

Justification

See paragraph 10 below.

2. Revised Character and Suitability tests

Proposal

In the 2008 consultation it was proposed to have character and suitability requirements which would

• require references from people who can comment objectively on an applicant's standing,
• require certificates of good standing from the applicant's home professional/regulatory body,
• require disclosure from UK's Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) where possible,
• where possible and appropriate, disclosure from CRB equivalent bodies in other jurisdictions,
• vary nature of evidence required according to where applicant lives and works and the availability of independent evidence of their character and suitability.

Impact

The issue of character and suitability as a whole is currently being reviewed by the SRA in 2010. The impact of any revisions will be subject to a separate equality impact assessment.

3. Eligibility to apply

Proposal

To apply applicants must be entitled to practise and have followed the full route to qualification in the jurisdiction on which they are basing their application.

Data considered

• Consultation responses
• 2008 motivation survey (see Annex 1)
• Bar Standards Board statistics

Impact

Bar Vocational Course (BVC) / Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) graduates were previously able to use the QLTR route to transfer into the solicitor profession (without being required to complete their qualification as a barrister). The proposal to require QLTT applicants to have completed their qualification and be entitled to practice, will disadvantage BVC graduates, making the option of qualifying as a solicitor less accessible.

NB - The Bar Vocational Course (BVC) is being replaced with the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC)

The data suggests that black and minority ethnic (BME) students who have completed the (BVC) are less likely to qualify as a barrister because they are less likely to obtain a pupillage than their White counterparts. The proposal is therefore likely to have a disproportionate adverse impact on BME graduates of the BVC.

Justification

The SRA has considered that the adverse impact on BVC/BPTC graduates can be justified, as the route in to the profession for BVC graduates was a 'loophole' which undermines the ability of the SRA to ensure the requisite standard of entry to the profession and undermines the validity of the scheme as whole as it is not in the public interest to give unqualified people a route to qualification which is normally reserved for qualified lawyers.

Mitigation

Although the adverse impact identified for BME graduates of the BVC/BPTC is primarily an issue for the Bar, the SRA wishes to avoid compounding any potential disadvantage faced by BVC/BPTC graduates. As part of the reforms to our domestic qualification, the SRA has agreed in principle that exemptions to the Legal Practice Course (LPC), although not the LPC assessments, should be considered. Work has commenced on this and will be completed in time for the implementation of the QLTS.

4. Recognised jurisdiction approach

Proposal

The scheme will be accessible to Qualified Lawyers from a much larger number of countries than is currently the case under the QLTR where eligibility is largely restricted to Commonwealth countries. Eligibility will be granted to regulated lawyers with a professional role broadly similar to that of a solicitor. This means that candidates must satisfy two sets of criteria to be Qualified Lawyers in a Recognised Jurisdiction.

We will be reviewing the jurisdictions from which the QLTT applicants are applying against set criteria. Once we have determined that the jurisdiction should be recognised, we will accept applications from qualified lawyers for that jurisdiction. We are proposing to review the decisions to recognise a jurisdiction every 5 years or whenever written evidence is received which suggests the need for a jurisdiction or qualification to be reviewed.

The criteria for assessing whether a jurisdiction should be recognised are:

• professional qualification requires completion of specific education and training at a level that is at least equivalent to that of an English / Welsh degree,
• members of the profession are bound by an ethical code that requires them to act without conflicts of interest and to respect their clients' interests and confidentiality,
• members of the profession are subject to disciplinary sanctions for breach of their ethical code, including the removal of the right to practise.

Impact

Decisions not to recognise legal qualifications from a particular jurisdiction would not be directly discriminatory on racial grounds (because jurisdiction is not synonymous with race). However it could be indirectly discriminatory if it were not justified, ie a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Data considered

• Consultation responses
• Feedback from meeting of Lord Ouseley's External Implementation Group

There is no statistical data available as we do not know which jurisdictions would meet the criteria.

Alternatives

The possibility of having a "no-restrictions" approach or eligibility based on World Trade Organisation (WTO) membership was considered and rejected because the role of lawyers in jurisdictions which do not meet the recognised jurisdiction criteria are not sufficiently similar to the role of the solicitor in England and Wales to make the transfer route open to them. WTO membership does not mean that members' legal systems have been assessed or that there is any comparability with the legal regulatory system in England and Wales.

We have also considered whether applicants from jurisdictions which have not been recognised should be given the right to 'appeal' by pleading special circumstances. We rejected this proposition for the reasons explained in paragraph 6 below.

Justification

The SRA is satisfied that this approach is justified for the following reasons.

• The proposed QLTS assessments alone are insufficient for the SRA to ascertain whether the experience and training applicants had acquired was sufficiently similar to that of an English solicitor to justify admission via a "fast-track" route.
• Evidence of good standing from the home jurisdiction has no credibility unless the SRA can have confidence in the home jurisdiction's regulatory system.
• If no regard is had to the qualification/regulatory regime then access to the scheme may be given to people who might not be regarded as lawyers at all. This would also undermine the domestic route to qualification as parity of standards would not be established.
• As explained in paragraph 3 above, applicants will not be bound to apply on the basis of the jurisdiction in which they gained their first legal qualification, which offers applicants a degree of flexibility
• Those from jurisdictions excluded by the criteria can gain admission via domestic route.

The SRA is committed to monitoring the impact of the scheme (see paragraph 6, Impact, below).

5. Phased approach

Proposal

Data considered

• Consultation responses
• Data on jurisdictions where current applicants come from (however the new scheme will be open to new jurisdictions which do not feature in this data)
• List of Priority Jurisdictions produced with the International Division of the Law Society

Impact

As we have decided to review the jurisdictions as and when the applications are received, we will not have be identifying specific groups of applicants whose applications will have to wait until their jurisdiction has been considered. There will be some delay as we consider the jurisdictions but this will be spread across all applicants and there will therefore not be any disproportionate race equality impact on any particular group of applicants.

6. Rights of appeal

Proposal

There should be no provision for individuals qualified in jurisdictions that do not satisfy the criteria for recognition to make a special case to be allowed to apply i.e. appeal.

There should be a mechanism in place to review decisions as to whether or not a jurisdiction satisfies the requirements.

Impact

The SRA cannot determine impact at this time as this proposal is dependent on the results of the international survey to be conducted by the SRA. The SRA will monitor the jurisdictions which were eligible under the old scheme and those eligible under the new scheme and assess the impact of the proposal to introduce the system for recognising jurisdiction without providing for individual appeals.

7. Practical assessments

Proposal

Introduction of practical assessments to test transactional and dispute resolution skills and legal, professional and client relationship knowledge and skills, professional values, behaviours, attitudes and ethics.

Impact

The practical assessments will be designed to incorporate a very high level of objectivity. This will serve to minimise any possible discrimination.

The new assessment methods could potentially present particular difficulties, for example, for those with disabilities or for older applicants who have not taken assessments for a significant number of years or have not encountered practical assessment previously.

Data considered

• Consultation responses
• Data on current QLTT lawyers
• 2008 motivation survey
• Benchmarking of other regulators (see Annex 2)
• Meeting with assessment organisations

An exploratory visit to the General Medical Council's assessment centre has taken place to learn more about their Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) and further benchmarking work has taken place of other regulators who use this sort of assessment tool.

The data available shows that there is a small number of practising QLTT transferees who have notified the SRA of their disability. Over half of practising QLTT transferees are between the ages of 31 and 40, and 88 per cent were under 40 on admission, which might suggest that they are more likely to have completed formal assessments in the recent past. Fourteen practising solicitors who were admitted through the QLTT route have notified the SRA that they have a disability (as at 29 June 2009). Further statistics are in Part 3. This data is confirmed by the results of the motivation survey (Annex 1).

Alternatives

Further written assessments have been rejected because practical skills cannot be adequately tested in a written assessment. An experience requirement has been rejected because it is difficult to objectively assess varying experience requirements. The SRA considered whether the assessment of professional values, behaviours, attitudes and ethics could be undertaken within an OSCE-style assessment instead of in a structured interview (which was the original proposal), and has concluded that this would make the assessments as whole much more robust and objective.

Mitigation

The identification and resolution of issues for older candidates as well as those with disabilities will be a key issue as the scheme is developed and addressed through the tender process. We have met and will continue to meet with disability and other equality groups well in advance of the scheme's implementation to ensure that any potential problems or adverse impacts are addressed. We will be proactive about encouraging applicants with a disability to apply and will look to best practice in this respect.

We will include key equality and diversity requirements to be met by the successful assessment body. We will monitor the assessment process and outcomes annually to ensure that the assessment process, application and outcomes are fair and objective.

We will ensure that the types of reasonable adjustments that might be made are anticipated as the assessments are designed and developed. We will ensure that agreement is reached with the assessment body about how requests for reasonable adjustments will be dealt with and how potential disadvantages can be designed out of the assessment arrangements. These issues will be dealt with further as part of the tender and implementation process and as part of our quality assurance mechanism.

Justification

Practical assessments are not new and are widely used by other regulators. The OSCE is, as the name suggests, a robust and objective means of testing and is therefore a means of minimising the risk of discrimination of any sort within the assessment process.

A lack of familiarity with practical assessments can be addressed with practice questions and further information on what to expect in assessments, and this will be discussed and developed when the assessment body is appointed. It is however, in the public interest for a robust set of assessments to be in place which properly and adequately test that applicants are of the requisite standard for admission as a solicitor of England and Wales.

8. English language requirement

Proposal

Applicants will need to demonstrate that they are able to use English with a level of competence sufficient to take accurate instructions from, and give clear and accurate advice to, clients in English, to understand and draft legal documents in English and to exercise rights of audience.

The English language test cannot, as a matter of law, be applied to EEA citizens seeking to work in the UK by virtue of the European Directives which provide free movement rights.

Impact

Those who are unable to evidence that their level of English is at CEFR Level 2, will be unable to proceed to take the QLTS assessments. This is likely to impact on applicants born and/or brought up in a non English speaking country and may constitute indirect race discrimination unless it is justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Data considered

• Consultation responses
• Benchmarking of other professions and Higher Education Institutions (see Annex 2)
• Feedback from Lord Ouseley's External Implementation Group
• Specific research prepared by Mandy Gill, Consultant to the SRA

Alternatives

Mitigation

Justification

9. Removal of experience requirement

Proposal

There will no longer be a specific experience requirement.

Transferees without practical experience will find it more difficult to pass the practical assessments which will act as a proxy for practical experience which has been considered in paragraph 7 above.

Impact

None.

10. No exemptions for international lawyers from QLTS written and practical assessments

Proposal

International lawyers will not be given exemptions from any element of the assessments

Impact

By law, the SRA is obliged to give consideration to and credit for the qualifications and experience gained by European Economic Area (EEA) candidates. As a result, EEA candidates may be given exemptions from some of the QLTT assessments whereas international candidates are required to pass all assessments and are not individually assessed on the basis of their actual qualifications and experience.

It may appear that the SRA is unjustifiably treating EEA and non-EEA applicants differently and this was an issue which was raised at the SRA's External Implementation Group. Firstly, the different treatment is prescribed by the law and secondly, in practice most EEA candidates will need to do the same assessments as international candidates. The requirement is not to excuse EEA candidates from having the required qualifications and experiences, but to give them credit for what they already have.

Data considered

• Consultation responses
• Feedback from meeting of Lord Ouseley's External Implementation Group

Justification

One of the core principles of the QLTR review was to develop a scheme based on the same knowledge, skills and ability as required by those who follow the domestic route to qualification. The aim throughout has been to ensure that as many applicants as possible meet the same high standard of entry as those coming through the domestic route.

If the SRA was to decide to assess the qualifications of all international applicants (in the same way as it is required to assess EEA candidates) this would reduce the rigour of the scheme. Inevitably, when making any comparison of international qualifications there is an element of subjectivity. The SRA needs to be able to reach an objective judgement as to whether an applicant has achieved the Day One Outcomes prior to admission which is why we would wish to avoid making those comparisons without clear justification, and this is best achieved through an all-encompassing assessment scheme.

It should also be noted that although EEA applicants are individually assessed under the current system, it is commonly the case that they are required to take all the assessments as the legal systems in many EEA countries are very different to that of England and Wales.

Exceptions are also made for UK lawyers as set out in section 12 below.

11. EEA requirements

Proposal

EEA lawyers will have their transfer requirements assessed individually. The Day One Outcomes will be used as the benchmark. The aptitude test will be compiled of appropriate elements of the written and practical assessments that form the International lawyers assessment. The assessments will be the same for EEA and non-EEA candidates.

Impact

See 10 above.

Data considered

• Consultation responses
• Feedback from meeting of Lord Ouseley's External Implementation Group

12. UK lawyers

Proposal

UK lawyers will be individually assessed.

Impact

Applicants from some jurisdictions might seek to argue that their legal system is closer or as close to that of England and Wales as Scotland and Northern Ireland and should also be individually assessed. The potential impact would be on international lawyers from countries which have a similar legal system as that in England and Wales.

Again the QLTS approach is determined by the nature of the jurisdiction where the qualification was obtained not the race of the applicant and therefore any potential adverse impact would be indirect.

Data considered

• Consultation responses
• Feedback from meeting held with Law Society of Northern Ireland

Alternatives

Individual assessment of each jurisdiction

Justification

Although individual assessment of all international candidates has been rejected for the reasons set out in 10 above, there is very clear justification in treating UK lawyers differently, namely:

• There is a significant overlap in relevant legislation (For example, all 11 new bills proposed in the 2008/9 Queen's Speech apply to Scotland.).
• There is a significant level of similarity in a number of areas of law. This is more so in Northern Ireland than in Scotland.
• Northern Ireland and Scotland are within the jurisdiction of the new Supreme Court (The Supreme Court (replacing the House of Lords) will be the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases and will hear appeals in criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland).
• Students are permitted to complete their training contracts under the England and Wales domestic route, in Northern Ireland.
• Whilst there are differences in the content of the LPC and BVC, Barristers in England and Wales have studied the same substantive law and procedure as those who have qualified as solicitors in England and Wales.

13. One assessment body

Proposal

Only one assessment body will be appointed. They will not be able to provide QLTS training courses

Impact

Here there could potentially be some positive impact for all equality groups as having one provider will enable the SRA to develop a more comprehensive Quality Assurance framework for the provider to comply with which will include key equality and diversity requirements e.g. avoiding assessment rounds on days of religious importance. The SRA can monitor more closely the process, application and outcomes of the assessment.

Data considered

• Consultation responses
• Feedback received at round table meeting of assessment providers

14. Abolish Distinguished Specialist Practitioner and academic lawyer routes

Proposal

Abolish Distinguished Specialist Practitioner and academic lawyer routes

Impact

The data indicates that this could have a potential indirect adverse impact on race equality.

Data considered

• Consultation responses
• The data we hold on applications via this route is not extensive - see tables below.

Number of Distinguished Specialist Practitioners	Location
1	Chile
1	Brazil
2	US
TOTAL	4

Number of Academic Lawyers	Location
3	UK
TOTAL	3

Justification

These routes for qualification are by their nature likely to involve a very subjective assessment process and given the overall objectives of the new proposals and the fact that so few applications have been received through this route, the SRA would be justified in implementing this aspect of the proposal.

Impact on other strands and human rights

Religion or belief

We recognise that the SRA needs to be sensitive to particular issues surrounding religion or belief, for example, the implications of assessments taking place on days of religious significance. We will also ensure that the assessment provider for the practical assessments are required, through the contract requirements, to take this into account.

Currently we do not have any comprehensive data on applicants' religion or beliefs. This is something which the SRA is now collecting for the first time and we will be monitoring this in future.

Sexual orientation

We have not encountered any evidence to suggest that the proposed changes would have a differential impact according to the sexual orientation of the applicant.

Currently we do not have any comprehensive data on applicants' sexual orientation. This is something which the SRA is now collecting for the first time and we will be monitoring this in future.

Gender

As at 29 June 2009, 44 per cent of practising QLTT transferees were female — this is comparable with the 45.2 per cent women in the entire practising population (Law Society's 2009 Annual Statistical Report). We have not encountered any evidence to suggest that the proposed changes would have a differential impact according to the gender of the applicant. However, we have been in contact with the Association of Women Solicitors to elicit whether they have any particular concerns about the proposals in relation to gender issues.

Anecdotally it is possible that the new QLTS will have a positive impact on female applicants who are more likely to have other e.g. childcare, responsibilities, as the scheme is made up of a compressed suite of assessments, and there is no explicit experience requirement.

If the proposals are implemented we will monitor whether the balance of applications from men and women changes and attempt to assess whether this has any correlation with the introduction of the new scheme.

Human Rights

We have not determined any aspect of these proposals which would interfere with the human rights of the applicants or potential applicants for QLTT.

PART 3 – Generic data on current transferees

As an organisation we have limited data on which to base our assessment of the equality and diversity impact of proposals and this is something which the SRA is seeking to redress via the diversity census. However, equality and diversity (E&D) implications have been taken into account throughout the development of the policy and legal advice has been sought.

Equality monitoring data

Number of solicitors on the roll with a practising certificate and number that qualified via QLTT

(The route to qualification of those solicitors who were admitted to the roll prior to the introduction of the Regis database is not accurately recorded. Therefore the number of solicitors who qualified via QLTT is potentially larger than shown here)

Date	All Solicitors on the Roll with PC	QLTT	QLTT (%)
31st December 2006	104,209	6,142	5.9
31st December 2007	107,818	6,796	6.3
31st December 2008	109,952	7,586	6.9
29th June 2009	114,787	8,547	7.4

Ethnicity	Non-QLTT	Non-QLTT (%)	QLTT	QLTT (%)	Total	Total (%)
White	86,474	81	2,638	31	89,112	78
Asian	6,360	6	356	4	6,716	6
Black	1,756	2	207	2	1,963	2
Chinese	537	1	217	3	754	1
Mixed	598	1	65	1	663	1
Other	1,747	2	103	1	1,850	2
Unknown	8,768	8	4,961	58	13,729	12
Total	106,240	100	8,547	100	114,787	100

Disability	Non-QLTT	Non-QLTT (%)	QLTT	QLTT (%)	Total	Total (%)
Yes	340	0.32	14	0.16	354	0
No	33,492	32	1,047	12	34,539	30
Unknown	72,408	68	7,486	88	79,894	70
Total	106,240	100	8,547	100	114,787	100

Age at admission to the roll (solicitors admitted since 1st January 2007 )

Age	Non-QLTT	Non-QLTT (%)	QLTT	QLTT (%)	Total	Total(%)
22-30	11,940	82	2,263	47	14,203	73
31-40	1,956	13	1,965	41	3,921	20
41-50	535	4	439	9	974	5
51-60	73	1	114	2	187	1
60+	4	0	20	0	24	0
Not Known	3	0	19	0	22	0
Total	14,511	100	4,820	100	19,331	100

Motivations and experiences questionnaire

The need to understand the motivations for applicants to the QLTR was identified in the earlier equality impact assessment in relation to the proposed interim changes to guidance in August 2008.

Therefore in August 2008, in an effort to improve our understanding about the reasons why so many lawyers apply to be admitted under the QLTR, the SRA sent questionnaires to a selection of individuals who had transferred via the QLTT or were considering transferring. A summary of the results is at Annex 1.

Gaps in the data and actions to address these gaps

We do not currently capture data about failed applications, which jurisdiction they have applied from, and why they have not been admitted. This information would enable us to assess whether our policies had a particularly detrimental impact on applicants from particular jurisdictions (although it would only be relevant to the current process and not the future system under the QLTS).

Further work has been identified in the preparation of this equality impact assessment, and this is set out at Annex 3.

Annex 1

Summary of responses to questionnaires on transferee's motivations and experiences

Introduction

Little has been known about the reasons why so many lawyers apply to be admitted as solicitors under the provisions of the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Regulations (QLTR). This has affected our ability to assess whether the current transfer scheme is fit for purpose and to evaluate the potential impact of changes to the arrangements.

To improve our understanding of transferees' motivations and to find out whether their expectations are met, the SRA published five short questionnaires for completion by people with different interests in, and experiences of, the transfer arrangements in July 2008.

This is a summary of the survey findings.

The questionnaires

The five questionnaires were targeted at

• barristers qualified in England and Wales who were considering or were in the process of transferring,
• barristers qualified in England and Wales who had completed the transfer process and had been admitted as solicitors,
• other lawyers eligible to transfer who were considering, or in the process of, transferring,
• other lawyers who had completed the transfer process and had been admitted as solicitors, and
• registered foreign lawyers.

We emailed information about the questionnaires to people who we knew fell into one of the categories above, directing them to the relevant questionnaire.

Responses

1. Barristers qualified in England and Wales who were in the process of, or who were considering, transferring to become solicitors

In total, 77 people completed this questionnaire.

• Location: 74 were living in the UK
• Employment:
  • 2 were practising as a barrister
  • 15 were employed barristers
  • 38 were paralegals
  • 71 intended to practise as a solicitor once admitted, of whom 44 had a position arranged
• Gender: 31 were male and 44 female
• Age:
  • 41 were in the age range 22–29
  • 20 were in the age range 30–39
  • 9 were in the age range 40–49
  • 3 were aged over 50
• Ethnicity:
  • 46 were "White", "White Irish" or "White Other"
  • 11 were"Black", "Black British Caribbean ", "Black British African" or "another Black or Black British Background"
  • 10 were "Asian", "Asian British Indian or Pakistani" or "other Asian"
• Disability: 2 had a disability

The main reasons people were seeking to transfer were because of the lack of opportunities (pupillage and tenancies) at the Bar.

2. Barristers qualified in England and Wales who had transferred and been admitted as a solicitor

In total, 189 people completed this questionnaire.

• Location: 172 were living in the UK
• Employment:
  • 163 were working in legal practice in the UK
  • 157 had been working in a solicitor's practice at the time they applied to transfer.
• Gender: 96 were male and 93 were female
• Age:
  • 42 were in the age range 22 – 29
  • 88 were in the age range 30 – 39
  • 37were in the age range 40 – 49
  • 15 were aged over 50
• Ethnicity:
  • 46 were "White British", "White Irish" or "White Other"
  • 3 were of "mixed ethnicity"
  • 9 were "Black or Black British Caribbean", "Black British African" or "other Black or Black British background"
  • 10 were "Asian or Asian British Indian", "Asian British Pakistani", "Other Asian" or "Asian British Background"
  • 1 was " Chinese or other ethnic group "
• Disability: 3 had a disability

Respondents were asked to summarise why they decided to transfer to become a solicitor.

The reasons most frequently given for their decision to transfer to become a solicitor were:

• difficulty in securing pupillage and/or a tenancy at the Bar,
• higher earnings and better security available as a solicitor, and
• improved career prospects, including opportunities to become a partner.

3. Other lawyers who are undertaking or considering starting the transfer process

In total, 616 people completed this questionnaire.

• Location: 316 were living in England and Wales of whom 232 were working in legal practice in England and Wales
• Employment:
  • 491 intended to practice as a solicitor in England and Wales once they had qualified (204 of these had positions already arranged)
  • 115 did not intend to practise in England and Wales
• Gender: 333 were male and 276 female
• Age:
  • 191 were in the age range 24–29
  • 293 were in the age range 30–39
  • 76 were in the age range 40–49
  • 22 were in the age range 50–59
  • 5 were in the age range 60–65
  • 2 were over 70
• Ethnicity:
  • 340 were "White British", "White Irish" or "White Other"
  • 13 were of "mixed ethnicity"
  • 59 were "Black or Black British Caribbean", "Black British African" or "other Black or Black British background"
  • 117 were "Asian or Asian British Indian", "Asian British Pakistani", "Other Asian" or "Asian British Background"
  • 25 were " Chinese or other ethnic group "
• Disability: 5 had a disability

Those who did not intend to practise as a solicitor in England and Wales were asked to indicate the most important reasons for wanting to be admitted as a solicitor. The most common answers were:

• "to open up other opportunities in the future",
• "to advise existing clients on matters of English law",
• "because you might want to work as a solicitor in England and Wales in the future",
• "to enhance your reputation in your home jurisdiction".

4. Other lawyers who had completed the transfer process and had been admitted as a solicitor

In total, 811 people completed this questionnaire. They were invited to answer questions about their country of residence and their experiences since qualifying as a solicitor in England and Wales. The answers given are summarised below.

• Location: 339 were living in England and Wales, 459 were not
• Employment:
  • 610 qualified in order to practise as a solicitor in England and Wales (191 did not)
  • 462 had worked as a solicitor in England and Wales (148 had not)
  • 628 had taken out a practising certificate
• Gender: 421 were male and 388 were female
• Age:
  • 102 were in the age range 22–29
  • 408 were in the age range 30–39
  • 187 were in the age range 40–49
  • 75 were aged over 50
• Ethnicity:
  • 547 were White British, White Irish or White Other
  • 20 were of mixed ethnicity
  • 65 were "Black or Black British Caribbean", "Black British African" or "other Black or Black British background"
  • 74 were "Asian or Asian British Indian", "Asian British Pakistani", "Other Asian" or "Asian British Background"
  • 40 were " Chinese of other ethnic group "
• Disability – 8 had a disability

Those who did not qualify in order to practise as a solicitor in England and Wales were asked to give the most important reason why they qualified. The most common answers were:

• "to open up other opportunities in the future",
• "because you might want to work as a solicitor in England and Wales in the future"
• "to advise your existing clients on matters of English law"
• "to enhance your reputation in your home jurisdiction".

A large majority of people who responded clearly regarded the transfer experience as a positive one. Improved job opportunities, enhanced status, greater acceptance by clients and promotion were frequently associated with transfer.

Those whose comments on the experience were negative typically referred to the difficulties they had gaining employment in England and Wales. Many suggested that employers looked behind their qualification as a solicitor and either did not understand the transfer route to qualification, or they held it in low regard or were looking for experience of practice in England and Wales that transferees did not have. Others had been disappointed with the level of pay they had been able to secure and some referred to the high costs of living in London. A small number of those who responded felt that the QLTT did not cover aspects of practice that were relevant to city practice. One commented that the QLTT is too easy and insulting ( "any fool can pass it").

A few people commented that the QLTT had not ensured they had adequate knowledge of practice when they qualified.

5. Registered Foreign Lawyers

In total, 20 people responded to this survey.

• Location: 9 were currently living in England and Wales, 11 were not
• Gender: 3 were women, 17 were men
• Age:
  • 3 of the respondents were in their 30s
  • 7 in their 40s
  • 7 in their 50s
  • 2 were over 60
  • 17 were men and 6 women
• Ethnicity:
  • 16 were white
• Disability: no respondents were disabled

Eight respondents were US qualified and of those, six did not know whether they were eligible to apply under the provisions of the QLTR. The reason most respondents had become RFLs was to enable them to become partners in an English firm.

One of US lawyers who did know they were eligible to apply under the QLTR intended to apply to transfer in order to be able to practice without restrictions.

The others who responded were from a range of jurisdictions; some were eligible to apply under the QLTR, others were not. Some intended to transfer, others did not know and some did not.

The SRA has produced a full report of the motivation survey which further analyses the results. This will be published in due course.

Annex 2

Relevant results of benchmarking research

Regulatory Body	Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)	General Dental Council (GDC)	Institute of Chartered Accounts in England and Wales (ICAEW)	Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS)	General Medical Council (GMC)
English Language Proficiency	No specific English test	Non EEA candidates must achieve a minimum score of 7.0 on IELTS and no score less than 6.5	No specific requirements specified but test conducted in English	IELTS score at least 7. First language English or if degree taught in English exempt	IELTS overall score 7: Minimum of 7 in speaking, and 6 in listening, academic reading and academic writing

Annex 3

Equality and diversity action plan

Action required	How?	Time scale
Assess the impact of the detailed arrangements made under the new scheme, in particular the assessments and English language requirement and in particular in relation to disability.	Through further EIA and monitoring English language requirement	1 year after implementation [January 2012]
Further consider the position of Bar Professional Training Course graduates	By mapping the Bar Professional Training Course against the Legal Practice Course to identify areas for exemption	February-May 2010
Address need for collecting improved data on admissions in future (e.g. jurisdiction from which they came and reason for not being admitted)	Through SRA's Enabling Programme and liaison with operational teams	Ongoing
Ensure that assessment providers collect and monitor equality data and provider this to the SRA	Through procurement process and quality assurance systems
Ensure that we better understand the needs of those wishing to transfer and those who are or have already transferred	By regular engagement with representative groups, lawyers seeking to transfer and solicitors admitted through the transfer route and seeking feedback through questionnaires and or a surveys	Ongoing
Ensure that equality data is collected about applicants who fail the assessments as well as those who pass in the new scheme	Through data collected by assessment body	Part of tender/monitoring process – 2010
Ensure that assessment organisations take into account time and cost considerations when developing assessments	Through validation process	Part of tender/monitoring process – 2010
Ensure assessments are marked objectively, fairly and consistently	Through the procurement process and implementation of quality assurance process	Part of tender/monitoring process – 2010
Monitor the take up of the new arrangements	By monitoring the number of applicants, monitoring the number of Registered Foreign or European Lawyers, and analysing impact of Recognised Jurisdiction approach	From September 2010
Ensure that the process adopted for English language testing is fair, objective and that coaching courses and testing centres are available in a large number of jurisdictions	By agreeing transparent criteria for approval of English language providers	March 2010