Anyone say sqe 2 in April/may feeling intense anxiety now but also helpless that results r so far away . I felt fairly confident after exams but now that’s all out the window and I just feel like I can’t afford to fail due to so much (my tc) riding on this .

My advice for sqe 1
Don’t attempt to make notes, alternatively
Highlight and annotate the textbook
Download a word document of each chapter and edit it like that ( close to exam main form of revision is SBAQ not note reading)

Gives you more time to make flash cards and do SBAQs

Aim to complete 250 SBAQs from the beginning - per week

Keep a note of how you perform in them weekly
Good way to see areas of weakness

Anything you score 50% or less in make sure you re cover the week later ( I did this by having a notebook writing down my scores in different topics and highlighting in red the ones I got less than 60% in so it was clear when I was coming back what I was struggling in )

When you are going through the content weekly as part of law , complete all the practice questions for that topic - it is difficult but you will thank yourself because when mocks and internal exams come around you would have already done the questions once - or almost completed them once

Notebook LM is a lifesaver - it converts the textbook into a podcast - and it helps so much when someone makes all the links of your content , and you can listen and follow through your textbook - also it gives more accurate answers than chat - it bases its answers SOLEY upon the sources you uploaded

SQE 2 Advice
SQE2 is completely different from SQE1. While SQE1 focuses heavily on functioning legal knowledge and multiple-choice assessments, SQE2 is about applying the law in practical, client-focused scenarios. Your preparation therefore needs to be much more skills-based and exam-focused from the beginning.
Written Assessments
As soon as you begin the course, take time to properly understand the structure of each assessment and what the examiners are actually testing. I found the free resources from INHOUSEW particularly helpful, especially the exam-specific guides they provide for each assessment type. I would strongly recommend downloading and reviewing these early on.
One thing that becomes clear over time is that many of the written assessments overlap in structure. The underlying skills are very similar — particularly professional email formatting, client-focused advice, and logical organisation. Once you understand the core structure, you can adapt it to the different assessment types relatively easily. In many ways, the structure remains consistent; it is mainly the legal content that changes.
Personally, I did not fully understand the practical structure of the written exams until a few weeks before the assessments, when I started completing large numbers of mock exams. Because of this, I would strongly recommend attempting mocks as early as possible, even before you feel “ready”. Early exposure helps you identify what the assessments actually require and what skills you still need to develop.
Maintaining FLK Knowledge After SQE1
After SQE1, it is very tempting to relax and allow your FLK knowledge to fade while waiting for results. In my experience, this is one of the biggest mistakes candidates can make.
Even if you are unsure whether you have passed SQE1, continue revising the core legal principles at least minimally. Black letter law remains highly important in SQE2 and can appear directly in assessments. For example, I had a legal writing assessment focused almost entirely on accessory liability in tort.
It is important to remind yourself that, regardless of the SQE1 result, you will eventually need this knowledge for SQE2. Although many people around you may appear more relaxed after SQE1, try not to fall into that mindset too early.
Legal Research
Legal research can initially feel overwhelming, but the key is developing a clear structure.
The most effective approach I learned — again through INHOUSEW mock examples — was to separate the research from the application. For each issue:
First explain what each source states.
Then include a separate paragraph applying those legal principles to the client’s facts.
This creates a much clearer and more organised answer, both for the examiner and for your own thought process during the assessment.
Drafting
For drafting assessments, remember that you are not expected to draft entirely from scratch. Where standard templates exist — particularly in criminal practice, dispute resolution, and property — they are generally provided within the assessment materials.
Your focus should therefore be on:
understanding the purpose of the document,
identifying the legally significant information,
and adapting the template appropriately to the facts provided.
Oral Assessments
For oral preparation, I found NotebookLM particularly useful. Listening to legal concepts explained in a simpler and more conversational way helped me understand how interviews and advocacy exercises should actually sound in practice.
Repeatedly listening to explanations also helped me naturally memorise concise and clear ways of communicating legal advice, which is extremely useful during the oral exams.
Interviewing
For interviewing assessments, strong legal knowledge is essential, but structure is equally important.
At the start of the interview, ensure you cover:
identification and confidentiality,
accessibility needs,
costs information,
and an overview of the meeting.
One approach I personally found more effective than the standard ULaw recommendation was addressing issues individually rather than gathering all information first. Most interviews involve approximately three key issues. I preferred to:
explore all relevant questions for the first issue,
provide initial advice,
then move onto the next issue.
This approach made interviews feel more natural and also made writing the attendance note significantly easier because the information was already organised by issue.
It is important to remember that the purpose of the interview is:
to extract relevant information,
and to provide initial legal advice.
Therefore, spend most of the time asking detailed and purposeful questions. The legal advice given during the interview only needs to be preliminary. Phrases such as:
“Based on the information currently available, it is likely that X may occur. However, I will provide more detailed advice in my follow-up letter after reviewing everything fully.”
work very well professionally.
For example, in wills and probate interviews, you do not need to calculate inheritance tax during the meeting itself. Instead, focus on identifying the information you would require in order to calculate it later, such as:
estate values,
lifetime gifts,
and the dates those gifts were made for taper relief purposes.
This questioning method can be applied across all practice areas.
Advocacy
For advocacy, there are only a limited number of applications and legal tests that are realistically examinable. From the beginning of your preparation, create flashcards for the key legal tests and revise them regularly.
The structure I found most effective was:
Introduce the client and the application.
Provide a roadmap:
“I will outline the legal test, apply it to the facts, and submit that the court should grant the application.”
Explain the factual background.
Set out the legal test clearly.
Apply the law to the facts.
Conclude with the remedy sought.
Importantly, when explaining the legal test, I would recommend outlining all elements of the test — even those you are not heavily relying upon — because it demonstrates full understanding of the law.
During preparation time, I also found it extremely helpful to create a basic script. Although some providers discourage this, I personally found there was sufficient time in the real assessment to prepare concise notes. The actual exam bundles are generally smaller and more manageable than many provider mock exercises.
In practice, judges in the assessment are often making notes rather than maintaining constant eye contact, so using a structured script is entirely manageable. Just ensure you still look up periodically and maintain some level of engagement with the tribunal.

Just want to say my biggest relief - is never needing to know the reliefs for CGT / corporation tax - I never committed them to memory - I was constantly confusing them up - and now I never need too.

wondering if its only me who realised this today - but were not supposed to actually provide in depth advice in the interview lol . more so asking questions and fact finding and providing initial advice with alot of once we have more details or once we obtain x we will get back to you

initially wanted my exams as late as possible so I could have as much time to revise

but seeing alot of my friends be done is making me so jealous - wondering if it was a good decision

also , the written exams feel like a life time ago - no way was it less than 2 weeks

though I have been over the content for what feels like a million times - still things I dont know .

feel exhausted and cant wait to be done

I was wondering - does the interview itself account for 50% of the overall grade and the attendance note 50%

I have heard some people say this but then others say the interview is a 25% of overall grade

u/060220 - I would like to share with everyone - the advocacy tests she has are amazing . They have a great structure and have helped me so much with advocacy prep . genuinely the best resource I have ever spent my money on !!!

If anyone has worries , or looking to sit sqe2 and is especially worried for advocacy , if you memorise her structures ect you will smash the exam - I have just done my sqe 2 orals and this was amazing . I had memorised the structures and smashed the exam .

do you think this is a complete list for advocacy criminal - would you recommend going over any additional topics

1. Bail Applications

• Contested Bail Applications: Making oral submissions to the magistrates to grant bail (unconditional or conditional) after the prosecution has stated their objections. This involves responding to prosecution grounds (e.g., risk of absconding or committing further offences) and applying relevant factors such as the defendant’s community ties and character.
• Bail Appeals: Presenting oral representations to a Crown Court judge in chambers during an appeal against a magistrates' court's refusal to grant bail.
• Breach of Bail Submissions: Making representations when a defendant is brought before the court following an arrest for an alleged breach of bail conditions.

2. Mode of Trial and Allocation

• Allocation Representations: For either-way offences, making oral submissions to the magistrates as to whether a summary trial or a trial on indictment is more suitable for the case.
• Indication of Sentence Requests: Orally requesting that the court provide an advance indication of the likely sentence (custodial or non-custodial) the defendant would receive if they were to plead guilty at that stage.

3. Evidential and Procedural Applications

• Admissibility Submissions (Voir Dire): Making legal submissions during a "trial within a trial" regarding the admissibility of disputed evidence, such as challenging a confession under Section 76 PACE(unreliability/oppression) or identification evidence under Section 78 PACE (unfairness).
• Submission of No Case to Answer: An oral submission made at the close of the prosecution case, asking the court to dismiss the charges because the prosecution has failed to prove an essential element or the evidence is manifestly unreliable.
• Hearsay and Bad Character Applications: Giving oral notice or making submissions to either adduce or oppose the introduction of hearsay or bad character evidence.
• Witness Summons Applications: Orally applying to the court for a witness summons if a material witness is reluctant to attend.

4. Trial Advocacy Speeches

• Opening Speeches: While usually performed by the prosecution to "set the scene," a defence advocate is entitled to make an opening speech in the Crown Court if they are calling witnesses other than the defendant.
• Closing Speeches: Summing up the case after all evidence has been heard, pointing out weaknesses in the prosecution case, and persuading the magistrates or jury to reach a verdict of not guilty.

5. Sentencing Advocacy

• Plea in Mitigation: A structured oral submission aimed at persuading the court to impose the most lenient sentence reasonably possible. This typically covers the likely sentence range, the circumstances of the offence, the personal mitigation of the offender (e.g., remorse, health, or family circumstances), and a suggested sentence.
• Newton Hearing Submissions: Making submissions and calling evidence when a defendant has pleaded guilty but disputes the prosecution's factual version of events in a way that materially affects the sentence.
• Breach of Sentence Submissions: Making representations on behalf of a defendant who is facing re-sentencing following a breach of a suspended sentence or a community order.

is this a good thing to do or not - if we have forgot what we are supposed to call the judge eg my lord or my lady , sir madam , judge - can we not structure our submissions :

if it pleases the court

the court should be invited to grant

I ask the court to consider

odd question, but has anyone tried to bring their own pen into the exam , I feel like it will make all the difference lol

If someone could shed some light on this issue for me please
Essentially for dr advocacy we’re memorising the tests - no need to go over black letter law

Hi all I can’t find any advice on how to annex noted from the interview for you attendance Note
Does anyone have any advice as to how to go about it / recommendations etc

last minute reminder

kind regards - email

yours sincerely - letter