There is a specific kind of terror that strikes law students when faced with a blank screen and the instruction: Draft. You imagine that real solicitors possess a secret vocabulary—a mystical lexicon of “heretofores,” “hereinafters,” and complex Latin maxims that magically make a document legally binding. You worry that if you do not sound like a Victorian judge, you will fail the assessment.

Let us dispel that myth right now.

The SQE2 Legal Drafting assessment is not a test of your ability to write poetry, nor is it a test of specialist, niche practice. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) explicitly states that the assessment evaluates your skills in the context of fundamental legal rules, at the level of a competent newly qualified (Day One) solicitor. They do not expect a masterpiece of intricate commercial drafting. They expect a document that works. They expect clarity, accuracy, and legal effectiveness.

For the aspiring solicitor, Legal Drafting is often the most intimidating station of SQE2. But it is also the most mechanical. It is a highly structured exercise that, once decoded, becomes entirely predictable.

This guide provides a comprehensive, strategic breakdown of the Legal Drafting assessment. We will explore exactly what the examiners are marking, the three types of tasks you will face, the strict 45-minute survival strategy, and the fatal exam-day traps that catch out even the brightest candidates.

Read more

I will share on this Substack the MCQ and its explanation every week, but do consider subscribing to the newsletter directly.

Email ‘subscribe’ to newsletter@glintiss.co.uk for all resources.

Question: A company challenges a regulatory decision based on rules originally derived from EU law. The rules were in force in the UK before the end of the transition period. The company argues that the court must interpret the rules consistently with pre-Brexit case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The regulator responds that the rules are now part of domestic law and may be interpreted differently. Which of the following best reflects the current legal position?

A. All EU-derived rules remain directly applicable in the UK and must be interpreted in line with all CJEU case law, past and future.
B. EU-derived rules automatically ceased to have effect after Brexit and cannot be relied on in UK courts.
C. EU-derived rules form part of domestic law, and while earlier CJEU decisions may still be relevant, UK courts are no longer strictly bound by them in the same way.
D. EU-derived rules continue to apply only where both parties agree to rely on them in litigation.
E. EU-derived rules can only be applied by UK courts if Parliament expressly re-enacts each provision after Brexit.

Correct answer: C. EU-derived rules form part of domestic law, and while earlier CJEU decisions may still be relevant, UK courts are no longer strictly bound by them in the same way. Feedback: Following Brexit, EU law that was operative in the UK at the end of the transition period was preserved as part of domestic law. This body of law was originally referred to as retained EU law and has since been reclassified as assimilated law under more recent legislation. The key features are: EU-derived rules continue to have effect as part of UK domestic law unless changed or repealed. Pre-Brexit decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union may still be considered when interpreting those rules. However, UK courts are no longer bound to follow those decisions in the same way as before, and higher courts may depart from them. The other options are incorrect because:

A is wrong: future CJEU decisions are not binding on UK courts.

B is wrong: EU-derived rules were preserved, not abolished entirely.

D is wrong: applicability does not depend on agreement between parties.

E is wrong: no general re-enactment requirement applies; preservation occurred automatically through legislation.

I will share on this Substack the MCQ and its explanation every week, but do consider subscribing to the newsletter directly.

Email ‘subscribe’ to newsletter@glintiss.co.uk for all resources.

Question: A delivery company employs a driver to transport parcels. During his shift, the driver stops briefly to visit a friend, despite company rules prohibiting personal stops. While leaving the friend’s house, the driver reverses the van negligently and injures a pedestrian. At the same time, the pedestrian was crossing the road while looking at a phone and failed to notice the reversing van. The pedestrian brings a claim against the delivery company. Which of the following best reflects the likely legal position?

A. The company is not liable because the driver was acting outside his employment when visiting a friend.
B. The company is liable because the driver was employed, and all acts during working hours are attributable to the employer.
C. The company may be liable because the driver’s actions were sufficiently connected to his employment, but damages may be reduced due to the pedestrian’s conduct.
D. The company is not liable because the pedestrian contributed to the accident by using a phone while crossing the road.
E. The company is automatically liable for the driver’s negligence, and the pedestrian’s conduct is irrelevant.

Correct answer: C. The company may be liable because the driver’s actions were sufficiently connected to his employment, but damages may be reduced due to the pedestrian’s conduct. Feedback: This scenario engages two key tort principles: vicarious liability and contributory negligence. First, an employer may be vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee if there is a sufficiently close connection between the employee’s conduct and their employment. Even though the driver made a prohibited personal stop, he was still carrying out his delivery duties overall. A minor deviation (often described as a “detour”) will not necessarily break the connection with employment. Second, the pedestrian’s conduct may amount to contributory negligence under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. Failing to pay attention while crossing the road may justify a reduction in damages, but it does not eliminate liability altogether. The other options are incorrect because:

A is wrong: a minor deviation does not automatically remove employer liability.

B is too broad: not all acts during working hours create liability; the connection to employment must be assessed.

D is wrong: contributory negligence reduces damages but does not eliminate the claim.

E is incorrect: contributory negligence is clearly relevant to the outcome.

The biggest misconception about the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) is that SQE2 is simply a harder version of SQE1. It is not. While SQE1 tests your ability to identify the correct legal rule, the SQE2 Legal Writing assessment tests your ability to communicate that rule to a specific audience under intense pressure.

In the Business Law and Practice (BLP) legal writing station, you have just 30 minutes to read an instructional email, review supporting documents, and write a professional letter or email. You are assessed at the standard of a “Day One solicitor”.

This guide breaks down exactly how to prepare for this station, the time-management strategy you must deploy on the day, and the fatal traps you must look out for during the exam.

Read more

I will share on this Substack the MCQ and its explanation every week, but do consider subscribing to the newsletter directly.

Email ‘subscribe’ to newsletter@glintiss.co.uk for all resources.

Question: A firm acts for a company buyer in an asset purchase. On Monday, the firm receives a single bank transfer of £18,000 from the client. The transfer is made up of £12,000 to be held on account of completion, £4,000 in respect of the firm’s profit costs for work already done, and £2,000 to reimburse counsel’s fee, which the firm has already paid from office account the previous week. The client’s email sent immediately before the transfer clearly identifies all three elements. The firm has previously delivered a bill to the client in respect of the £4,000 profit costs.. The cashier asks how the money should be dealt with that day. Which is the best answer?

A. Pay the full £18,000 into client account first, because all money received from a client in connection with a matter must initially be treated as client money until billing is completed.

B. Pay £12,000 into client account and £6,000 into office account, because the payment is mixed and the firm should allocate promptly to the correct accounts.

C. Pay £16,000 into client account and £2,000 into office account, because reimbursement of counsel’s fee already paid by the firm is office money, but money for the firm’s own costs must always pass through client account before any transfer out.

D. Pay the full £6,000 relating to costs and disbursements into office account regardless of whether a bill was delivered, because the whole mixed payment can be allocated. Return the £12,000 to the client till the money is requested.

E. Pay the full £18,000 into office account, because the client has expressly identified the purpose of each sum and none of the money therefore needs the protection of client account.

Correct answer: B, Pay £12,000 into client account and £6,000 into office account, because the payment is mixed and the firm should allocate promptly to the correct accounts.

This is correct because the £18,000 is a mixed payment, and the SRA Accounts Rules 2019 require the firm to allocate mixed receipts promptly to the appropriate account rather than treating the whole sum as one type of money.

Each element must be classified on its own nature. The £12,000 held on account of completion is plainly client money: it belongs to the client and is being held for a specific transaction purpose. It must go into client account and be kept separate from the firm’s own funds.

The £2,000 reimbursing counsel’s fee is office money. The firm already discharged that liability from its own office account the previous week, so the client is simply repaying the firm. There is no client interest to protect and no reason to route this through client account.

The £4,000 for the firm’s profit costs would ordinarily require a bill or written notification of costs to have been delivered before client money could be used to satisfy it. Here, however, the scenario confirms that a bill has already been delivered in respect of these costs. That condition is met, so the £4,000 can properly be allocated directly to office account on receipt without any intermediate step through client account.

The cashier should therefore pay £12,000 into client account and £6,000 into office account on the day of receipt.

Why the other answers are wrong:

A is wrong because the rules do not require every sum received from a client to be paid into client account first regardless of its character. That would be too crude. The rules focus on the nature of the money. Mixed payments must be allocated promptly and correctly, not mechanically treated as wholly client money.

C is wrong because it asserts that the firm’s profit costs must always pass through client account before being transferred to office account. No such universal rule exists. The requirement is correct classification at the point of receipt and, where client money is being used for costs, prior delivery of a bill or written notification. Both conditions are satisfied here, so the £4,000 goes directly to office account.

D is wrong in two respects. First, it treats the billing requirement as irrelevant when in fact it is a genuine precondition — one that happens to be satisfied on these facts but cannot simply be disregarded as a matter of principle. Second, and more fundamentally, it suggests returning the £12,000 completion money to the client until it is needed. Completion money received from a client must be held in client account; it cannot simply be returned because the transaction has not yet completed.

E is wrong because the £12,000 for completion is client money regardless of how clearly the client has identified its purpose. Client identification of the payment elements assists the firm in classifying the money correctly, but it cannot convert client money into office money. Completion funds must be protected in client account.

Picture this. You are advising a property investor who wants to rent out rooms but strictly avoids giving occupiers any pesky statutory rights. To outsmart the system, they instruct you to draft a document titled “Non-Exclusive Licence to Occupy.” It explicitly states that the owner can enter the room whenever they wish to share the space. The investor hands over the keys, the occupier moves in, pays weekly, and locks the door.

A year later, the investor wants them out and gives them twenty-four hours’ notice. The occupier refuses. The investor marches into your office, waving their piece of paper with the word “licence” typed in bold at the top, demanding an immediate eviction.

This is the moment your client discovers that the law of property does not care about their clever labels. A judge will look at the reality of the situation, finding exclusive possession, for a term, at a rent. Your client has accidentally created a lease and is now stuck with a tenant they cannot easily remove.

Cases like Street v Mountford remind us that property law operates on substance, not fiction.

Welcome to your definitive guide to Leases for the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE). Leases are the ultimate crossover topic. In land law, they are a proprietary estate—a theoretical bundle of rights. In property practice, they are a transactional minefield of drafting, commercial management, and taxation. In this guide, we are going to cover the complete lifecycle of a lease. Crucially, as we move from creation to practice, we will draw a hard, bright line between Commercial Leases (governed by commercial risk allocation) and Residential Leases (governed by an evolving, strict consumer protection regime that fundamentally changes in 2026).

Read more

Judicial review is an area where candidates often feel the ground move under their feet. The reason is simple: it is not a private law claim.

Judicial review is a supervisory jurisdiction. The court is not there to decide whether a decision made by a public body was “right,” or even whether the outcome is harsh. It is there solely to decide whether a decision was lawful in a public law sense.

That single idea explains most judicial review MCQs on the SQE. If the question stem invites you to argue about the fairness of the outcome, you must pull back and look at the process.

The First Killer: The Time Trap

Time limits in judicial review are strict, and they are designed to be a gatekeeping issue. A claim must be brought promptly and in any event within 3 months of the grounds arising.

Candidates lose marks because they treat it like a standard civil six-year limitation period, or because they remember the “3 months” but forget the word “promptly.”

🚨 Exam Traps:

• Negotiations: Hoping a policy will be withdrawn or engaging in negotiations does not automatically pause the clock.

• Ongoing effect: The ongoing effect of a decision does not usually reset the clock.

• Merits: Having a really strong case (strong merits) does not cure lateness.

Amenability: Who Can Be Reviewed?

Amenability is function-based, not just name-based. A common exam scenario involves a private company running a facility (like a detention centre) under a statutory contract.

Can they be judicially reviewed? Yes. The exam is testing whether you understand that private bodies can be amenable to judicial review when they are exercising public functions. It is not limited strictly to government departments.

Identifying the Ground and the Remedy

When looking for the ground of challenge, match the flaw to the legal category:

• Illegality: Did the decision-maker act outside their legal powers?

• Irrationality: Was the decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it?

• Procedural Unfairness: Did the process fail to meet required standards of fairness? For example, making a decision without giving the affected person an opportunity to make representations, especially if there is a legitimate expectation created by a consistent past practice of consulting.

If you establish a ground, the main remedies are quashing, prohibiting, and mandatory orders, plus declarations and injunctions. Damages are exceptional in judicial review and usually depend on some separate legal basis (like a human rights breach).

The Methodical Approach

When you face a judicial review question, ask yourself these gatekeeping questions in this exact order:

1. Is the defendant amenable to judicial review?

2. Does the claimant have sufficient interest (standing)?

3. Is permission needed and likely to be granted?

4. Was the claim brought promptly and within the 3-month time limit?

5. Is there an adequate alternative remedy?

6. What is the best ground of challenge?

7. What form of relief is appropriate?

If you run through that checklist every time, you will avoid the trap of arguing the merits and successfully spot the procedural flaw the examiner is testing.

For a nice video summary, watch this short video.

For a long thorough journey through FLK Legal System, watch this video.

I will share on this Substack the MCQ and its explanation every week, but do consider subscribing to the newsletter directly.

Email ‘subscribe’ to newsletter@glintiss.co.uk for all resources.

Question: A company purchases goods from a supplier on credit. The contract states that ownership of the goods remains with the supplier until full payment is made. The company later grants a bank a floating charge over all its stock. Before paying the supplier, the company becomes insolvent. At the time of insolvency, some goods are still identifiable, while others have been sold and mixed into finished products. Both the supplier and the bank claim priority over the remaining assets. Which of the following best reflects the likely legal position?

A. The bank has priority over all goods because a floating charge covers all stock of the company.
B. The supplier has priority over all goods because ownership never passed to the company under the clause.
C. The supplier may recover identifiable goods, but will lose priority over goods that have been sold or transformed.
D. The bank automatically takes priority because secured creditors rank ahead of unsecured suppliers in all cases.
E. The supplier will rank as an unsecured creditor for all goods because retention clauses are not enforceable in insolvency.

✅ Correct Answer: C. The supplier may recover identifiable goods, but will lose priority over goods that have been sold or transformed. Feedback: A retention of title clause allows a supplier to retain ownership of goods until payment is made. If valid, the supplier can recover goods still identifiable in their original form, as ownership never passed to the buyer. However, Once goods are sold on, the supplier’s rights are usually lost unless the clause validly extends to proceeds. If goods are mixed or transformed into new products, ownership is generally lost because the original goods no longer exist in identifiable form. A floating charge covers circulating assets like stock but only attaches to assets that belong to the company. If ownership has not passed, the charge does not attach to those goods. The other options are incorrect because:

• A is wrong: the bank’s charge only covers assets owned by the company.

• B is too broad: the supplier’s rights are limited to identifiable goods.

• D is incorrect: priority depends on ownership and security, not simply secured vs unsecured status.

• E is incorrect: retention of title clauses can be valid and effective if properly drafted.

  ---

  Dr Yannis is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Candidates often tell me this area of the syllabus feels like fog. You know “retained EU law” exists, and you know something changed, but the exam questions come at you sideways. They ask about interpretation, supremacy, whether EU case law still matters, whether domestic courts can depart, and what category of law you are even dealing with.

The reason it feels so slippery is because the exam tests classification first, and only then the consequence.

Here is how to clear the fog.

The Big Shift: January 1, 2024

The most crucial thing to understand is that since 1 January 2024, retained EU law ceased to exist as a special category. Broadly speaking, what remained on the statute book became “assimilated law”.

Under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, the principle of EU supremacy was removed from domestic law, alongside special EU interpretive features.

However, that does not mean “EU law is irrelevant”. It simply means you must be incredibly precise about what you are relying on and why.

The Two-Step Method

Your method for SQE1 is always the same:

1. Identify what the rule is: Are you looking at UK primary legislation, UK secondary legislation that implemented an EU directive, or EU-derived direct legislation that was carried over and then assimilated?

2. Identify what the question is really asking: Is it asking about interpretation, priority in a conflict, or the weight of EU case law?

Handling the Three Common Exam Scenarios

When you face an SQE question, it will likely test one of these three angles. Here is how to handle them:

• Interpretation: The point is not to pretend EU context never existed, but to recognise that the domestic framework now governs. While supremacy is not a general domestic rule after the end of 2023, EU-era materials can still be relevant as persuasive context depending on the statutory framework.

• Priority (Conflicts of Law): If a later Act of Parliament clearly conflicts with “assimilated law,” the later domestic Act prevails, subject to any specific statutory exceptions. You must avoid the old supremacy reflex; domestic enactments take precedence over what was previously retained EU law.

• Precedent (CJEU Decisions): The exam punishes absolutes here. A domestic court is not simply “always” bound by CJEU decisions, nor are they “never” allowed to consider them. A domestic court may treat relevant EU-era case law as persuasive or binding depending on the specific category of law and the statutory rules on departure.

The Exam Mantra

To close this topic, memorise this simple approach for exam day. Classify the rule, identify if the question is about interpretation, priority, or precedent, and then repeat this mantra:

“Domestic law governs; EU materials may be relevant depending on context; supremacy is not a general domestic principle after 2023.”

Your safest, high-scoring move is classification plus cautious consequence, rather than making sweeping claims.

For a nice video summary, watch this short video.

For a long thorough journey through the EU and Constitutional Law, watch this video.

I will share on this Substack the MCQ and its explanation every week, but do consider subscribing to the newsletter directly.

Email ‘subscribe’ to newsletter@glintiss.co.uk for all resources.

Question: A man is tried in the Crown Court for robbery. During the trial, the prosecution seeks to rely on a previous conviction of the defendant for a similar offence committed five years earlier. The defendant has chosen to give evidence and, during cross-examination, states that he is “not the sort of person who would ever use violence.” The prosecution applies to adduce evidence of the previous conviction as bad character evidence. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which of the following best explains whether the evidence of the previous conviction is admissible?

A. The evidence is automatically admissible because all previous convictions are relevant to credibility once the defendant gives evidence.
B. The evidence is admissible because the defendant has made an assertion about his own good character, allowing the prosecution to rebut it.
C. The evidence is inadmissible unless the defendant consents, because prior convictions are excluded to ensure a fair trial.
D. The evidence is admissible only if the prosecution can show that the previous conviction directly proves the defendant committed the current offence.
E. The evidence is inadmissible because it would unfairly prejudice the jury, regardless of what the defendant said in evidence.

✅ Correct Answer: B. The evidence is admissible because the defendant has made an assertion about his own good character, allowing the prosecution to rebut it. Feedback: Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, evidence of a defendant’s bad character is generally inadmissible unless it falls within one of the statutory gateways set out in s.101(1). One key gateway applies where the defendant has made an attack on another person’s character or has given a false impression about their own character (s.101(1)(f) and (g)). Here, by stating that he is “not the sort of person who would ever use violence,” the defendant has presented himself as having good character in relation to violence. This opens the door for the prosecution to introduce evidence of a previous conviction for a similar violent offence in order to correct that misleading impression.

The other options are incorrect because:

• A is wrong: previous convictions are not automatically admissible merely because the defendant gives evidence.

• C is wrong: admissibility does not depend solely on the defendant’s consent; the statutory gateways apply.

• D is wrong: the evidence does not need to directly prove the current offence; it can be admitted under specific gateways such as correcting a false impression.

• E is wrong: although the court must consider fairness (including under s.101(3)), evidence is not automatically excluded simply because it is prejudicial.

Here is a scenario candidates hate because it feels unfair. A company collapses. There are employees owed wages, a bank with security, and trade suppliers who have delivered goods and remain unpaid. Everyone is shouting “priority”. The exam asks who gets paid first, and you feel like you are being asked to memorise a spreadsheet.

The trick is to stop thinking of insolvency as a pile of facts and start thinking of it as buckets in a fixed order.

The Two-Step Method

To succeed in the exam, your method is always the same:

1. Classify the claim: Is it a fixed charge, a floating charge, a preferential claim, an expense of the insolvency, or an unsecured debt?

2. Apply the order: Drop them into the correct “bucket”.

The Core Distinction: Fixed vs. Floating

The big conceptual distinction you must master is fixed versus floating charges.

• Fixed Charge: A fixed charge attaches to a specific asset and restricts the company from dealing with it. The chargeholder is paid from the proceeds of that specific asset (subject to permitted deductions), putting them ahead of preferential claims.

• Floating Charge: A floating charge hovers over a class of assets (like stock or receivables) and allows the company to deal with them freely until crystallisation. Because of this freedom, it ranks behind certain other claims out of the floating charge realisations.

🚨 Exam Trap: Substance Over Label The SQE loves to probe substance over label. If a company grants a document labelled a “fixed charge” over book debts, but the company is free to collect the debts and use the proceeds in the ordinary course of business without a blocked account or consent, it is likely to be treated as a floating charge. Control over the asset and its proceeds is central.

The Prescribed Part

A floating charge can be carved up by statutory rules, most notably the “prescribed part”.

• This is a portion carved out of floating charge realisations specifically for unsecured creditors.

• It exists precisely to prevent the floating charge holder from taking the entire asset pool, ensuring that unsecured trade creditors might receive something.

The Methodical Approach

When you see an insolvency priority question, do not try to remember every sub-rule at once. Repeat this out loud:

• “Fixed charge assets pay fixed charge holders.”

• “Floating charge assets are subject to expenses, preferential debts, and the prescribed part before the floating charge holder takes.”

• “Unsecured creditors come after that.”

If you keep those buckets straight, you will pick the correct option under exam pressure.

For a nice video summary, watch this short video.

For a long thorough journey through FLK Business Law & Practice, watch this video.

When considering costs in a civil claim, nothing can rewire the financial outcomes as dramatically as Part 36. This is not “just settlement”; it is a formal procedural device that can leave you with a massive bill even if you “win” at trial. The SQE exam frequently tests this topic because small timing details trigger big outcomes.

A Part 36 offer is an offer to settle made under specific formal requirements of the CPR. Once made, it creates a “relevant period” of not less than 21 days. This period is a critical hinge that determines how costs are allocated.

To succeed on the SQE, you must be methodical. When you see an offer that might be a Part 36 offer, immediately ask two questions:

1. Is it a genuine Part 36 offer? (i.e., does it meet the formal requirements?)

2. What happened next? (i.e., was it accepted within the relevant period, accepted late, or not accepted with a judgment that either beats or fails to beat the offer?)

Let’s break down the exact cost consequences of each possible scenario.

Scenario 1: The Offer is Accepted in Time

If a defendant makes an offer and the party receiving the offer (the claimant) accepts it within the 21-day relevant period:

• Cost Consequence: The defendant must pay the claimant’s reasonable and proportionate costs of the proceedings up to the date of acceptance.

• Outcome: This is the cleanest and most common result.

Scenario 2: The Offer is Accepted Late

If the claimant accepts the offer after the relevant period has expired, the court has a default (but discretionary) position:

• Cost Consequence: The defendant pays the claimant’s costs up to the end of the 21-day relevant period. However, the claimant must then pay the defendant’s costs from the end of that period up to the date of acceptance.

• Penalty: This acts as a penalty for the claimant’s delay in settling.

Scenario 3: No Acceptance and The Case Goes to Trial

This is where Part 36 gets brutal. The court will compare the final judgment to the earlier Part 36 offer(s).

Scenario 3A: The Claimant made an offer and beats it

The claimant made a Part 36 offer to accept £45,000. The defendant refused. At trial, the claimant is awarded £50,000. The claimant has “beaten” their own offer (meaning the judgment is at least as advantageous as the offer).

• Cost Consequence: The court will, unless it is unjust to do so, award the claimant:

  • Interest on the damages awarded at an enhanced rate (up to 10% above base).

  • Costs calculated on an indemnity basis from the end of the relevant period.

  • Enhanced interest on those costs.

  • An additional lump-sum payment (up to £75,000).

• Penalty: This severely penalizes the defendant for not settling on terms the claimant was willing to accept.

Scenario 3B: The Defendant made an offer and the Claimant fails to beat it

The defendant made a Part 36 offer to pay £30,000. The claimant refused. At trial, the claimant is awarded only £28,000. The claimant has “failed to beat” the defendant’s offer.

• Cost Consequence: Even though the claimant “won” some money, the usual “successful party pays costs” rule is overridden. The court will order:

  • The claimant pays the defendant’s costs from the end of the relevant period.

  • The claimant pays interest on those costs.

• Penalty: This severely penalizes the claimant for not accepting an offer that was better than what they ultimately received.

By mastering this approach, Part 36 stops being mysterious and becomes mechanical. You will find it intense, but you will not be guessing.

For a nice video summary, watch this short video.

For a long thorough journey through Dispute Resolution and FLK, watch this video.

Imagine this: a client is brought into a police station in the early hours of the morning, exhausted, frightened, and unsure whether to speak. By the end of the process, that same client may be facing charge, remand, trial, sentence, and the full weight of the criminal justice system. Between those two points lies a world of strict statutory time limits, carefully controlled evidential rules, tactical decisions of enormous consequence, and professional duties that can never be compromised.

This is the world of Criminal Law and Practice. It is a subject built not only on offences and procedure, but on judgment. The solicitor at the police station is not simply a passive observer. The solicitor in court is not merely a mouthpiece. At every stage, the task is to protect the client’s position while upholding the administration of justice. That means knowing when detention has become unlawful, when silence is wise, when disclosure is defective, when evidence should be excluded, and when professional duty overrides client pressure.

Today, we are going inside that world. We will work through the Solicitors Qualifying Examination FLK2 specification for Criminal Law and Practice, updated for the realities of 2026, including the major developments in sentencing and release. Whether the client is accused of shoplifting, fraud, assault, or a grave indictable offence, the legal architecture is the same. These are the rules of the game.

Read more

Introduction: The Half-Million Pound Illusion

Congratulations on buying your first house. You’ve found the property, agreed on the price, instructed solicitors, and transferred the funds for completion. Contracts are exchanged, the deal is done. Except there is just one small problem: the person who sold you the house doesn’t actually own it.

This is not a hypothetical exam scenario. In the case of Purrunsing v A’Court & Co, a fraudster impersonated the owner of a Wimbledon house, convinced the solicitors he was the legitimate seller, and vanished with the buyer’s purchase money. By the time the fraud was uncovered, the money was overseas. The buyer had paid nearly half a million pounds and legally owned nothing.

Cases like this serve as a harsh reminder that conveyancing is not merely administrative paperwork. Every search, title investigation, and identity check exists to prevent exactly this kind of disaster. A solicitor’s primary function from the moment of instruction is risk management. You are an investigator, tasked with ensuring the seller has the right to sell and that the buyer will receive good title. If you miss a restrictive covenant or fail to secure a valid mortgage charge, you expose the client to financial ruin and yourself to a negligence claim.

This guide navigates the Functioning Legal Knowledge (FLK2) requirements for Property Law and Practice, moving from the microscopic investigation of title to the broader complexities of commercial leases, planning, and the 2026 tax landscape.

Read more