Kellys SQE Examiner · Sample, graded
An SRA sample question, graded by Kellys.
Read the same Legal Writing question on the SRA’s published Property Practice sample, then see the indicator-by-indicator breakdown Kellys returns. The breakdown is an illustration of how Kellys grades — your own attempt produces a real, indicator-by-indicator grade from the live examiner.
The SRA’s sample question.
Published by the SRA as a Property Practice Legal Writing sample. The partner’s email is on the left; the SRA’s own “clearly passed” sample answer is on the right. Both verbatim, both cited.
SRA sample · Property Practice · 30 minutes
Email to candidate
- From:
- Partner
- Sent:
- 23 May 202#
- To:
- Candidate
- Subject:
- Mrs Sonia Lowe – Purchase of 43 Hill Road, Woking GU22 3KL
SRA “clearly passed” sample answer
Sample candidate letter
Source: SRA, “SQE2 sample question and discussion of answer — Legal writing (Property Practice)”, reviewed December 2025. sqe.sra.org.uk. Accessed 2026-06-09. Standard Conditions of Sale (Fifth Edition — 2018 Revision) © The Law Society & Oyez Professional Services (part of Advanced) and referenced but not reproduced here.
How Kellys grades the same attempt.
Six SRA Legal Writing criteria, every band anchored on what the candidate actually wrote. This is an illustrative breakdown of how Kellys grades — your own attempt produces a real, indicator-by-indicator grade from the live examiner.
Illustrative grade. Your own attempt is graded live by the Kellys examiner.
Estimate based on the SRA Performance Indicators. Not a pass guarantee. Final marking is by the SRA.
Performance Indicator breakdown
| Criterion | Grade | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Include relevant factsSkills | A | The candidate identifies the key facts the law turns on — the Standard Conditions of Sale are incorporated, the contractual completion date is 30 May, the contract rate is 5%, the date the client believes she can complete by is 5 June, and the seller has no related purchase. Nothing material is omitted; nothing irrelevant is included. |
| Use a logical structureSkills | A | Greeting, main heading, clear introductory BLUF, four signposted sub-headings (Notice to complete · Compensation · Damages · Undertaking), and a sign-off. The recipient can navigate to any sub-issue in a single glance. Structure signals competence before substance is read. |
| Advice/content is client and recipient focusedSkills | B | The letter directly answers Mrs Lowe's worry — that she will lose the house and the deposit. The opening reassures: that outcome does not follow from a short delay. Each sub-section is written to the client's question, not as a general note on the law. A stronger answer would acknowledge the emotional weight of the situation more explicitly in the opening line — the partner flagged that Mrs Lowe was in distress. |
| Use clear, precise, concise and acceptable language which is appropriate to the recipientSkills | B | Plain English throughout; no statutory citations or Standard Condition paragraph numbers leak into the letter, which is the right call for a lay client who the partner described as intelligent and astute. The compensation calculation is given as a concrete figure (£221.92) rather than a formula. Two paragraphs run slightly long and could be tightened without losing content. |
| Apply the law correctly to the client's situationApplication of law | A | The notice-to-complete mechanic is applied correctly: ten working days from service, earliest service 30 May, comply-by date 13 June. Compensation is correctly identified as automatic under the Standard Conditions at the contract rate. Damages is correctly framed as contingent on actual loss. The contractual logic tracks the facts at every step. |
| Apply the law comprehensively to the client's situation, identifying any ethical and professional conduct issues and exercising judgment to resolve them honestly and with integrityApplication of law | B | The undertaking issue is correctly identified as a professional conduct point and the candidate gives the right reason — a solicitor should not give an undertaking for something outside their control. The letter could go further by briefly explaining what an undertaking is in plain English (rather than treating the term as self-evident) and by setting the comply-by-13-June fallback alongside the 5-June expectation more prominently. |
Strengths
- Opens with a one-paragraph BLUF that resolves the client's headline fear — house and deposit are not at immediate risk on these facts.
- Numerical compensation figure (£221.92) is calculated and shown, not just described abstractly.
- Professional conduct point on the undertaking is identified without being prompted in the brief.
- Sub-headings let the client navigate to any single question on a second read.
Weaknesses
- Opening line is procedural ("I refer to our recent telephone conversation") rather than warmly acknowledging the client's distress.
- The two-week comply-by window could be surfaced more visibly so the client takes away the date 13 June, not just the date 5 June.
- Brief explanation of what "undertaking" means in plain English would help the lay reader.
Improvement priorities
- Lead with one sentence that names what the client is afraid of and addresses it.Example: "You will not lose the house and you will not lose your deposit because of a short delay — this letter explains why." Then the procedural sentence can follow.
- Define "undertaking" the first time the term appears.One short clause is enough: "…would be construed as an undertaking — a personal promise by a solicitor that creates a binding professional obligation — and a solicitor should only give an undertaking for something within his or her control."
- Make the 13 June deadline as visible as the 5 June expectation.End the Notice to complete section with one line: "In summary: the latest date you would have to complete by is 13 June. You expect to be able to complete on 5 June, which is well within that window."
Why this is what practice looks like.
The SRA publishes sample questions and sample answers. They are the most honest signal a candidate has about what the examiner is looking for. What they do not show is which Performance Indicators were satisfied by which sentences, where the answer fell short, and what the next-highest-leverage fix would be.
Kellys grades against the same SRA Performance Indicators, indicator by indicator, with the evidence the band rests on. Strengths are called out by line; weaknesses are anchored on the specific sentences that let the candidate down; the three highest-leverage fixes are prioritised in plain English.
The breakdown above is what arrives on screen the moment you paste your own attempt into the examiner. The bands here are illustrative; the bands on your own attempt are real, generated by the live grader from what you actually wrote.
More graded samples, station by station.
Worked-through samples for the other four SQE2 stations are being added. In the meantime, every station is live in the examiner and every attempt is graded against the SRA’s published Performance Indicators for that station.
Legal Drafting
Draft a legal document or amend a draft against the SRA’s Drafting Performance Indicators.
Start a Drafting scenario →Legal Research
Identify the law, record the sources, present the conclusion as you would to a supervising principal.
Start a Research scenario →Case & Matter Analysis
Weigh facts, law, risk, cost. Advise on the next step. Graded against the six CMA indicators.
Start a CMA scenario →Client Interview
Sit the oral Client Interview in the browser. Eye-contact, pace, and fillers scored alongside the transcript.
Sit a Client Interview →Start your first scenario.
Paste an attempt. Get the same kind of breakdown you saw here — this time on what you actually wrote.
Kellys SQE Examiner is exam-preparation practice software, not legal advice and not the SRA. Read the AI disclaimer for the full boundaries.