How to Pass SQE2 Legal Drafting: A Guide to what the SRA are looking for
- lawmaterevision
- Apr 19
- 5 min read
The most common Legal Drafting mistake isn't bad writing. It's preparing without ever reading the SRA's actual marking criteria.
The SRA publishes the four performance indicators used to mark every Legal Drafting assessment — including exactly what failure looks like. Most candidates have never properly engaged with them. This post goes through all four, tells you what they really mean under exam conditions, and gives you a framework you can use from your next practice session.
Quick note: I'm not a trained SRA marker — I'm someone who has passed SQE2. This guide is built directly from the SRA's published Legal Drafting performance indicators, nothing more, nothing less.
What Kind of Test Is This, Actually?
Lock this in before anything else: SQE2 Legal Drafting is not primarily a writing test.
Two of the four performance indicators are explicitly about the law. And even the two "skills" PIs are knowledge-dependent — you can't structure a document "appropriately" unless you know what the right structure looks like for that document type. The candidates who underperform here are rarely poor writers.
They're candidates whose legal knowledge or document-format knowledge wasn't solid enough. That shapes everything about how you should prepare.
The Four Performance Indicators
Skills:
Use clear, precise, concise and acceptable language.
Structure the document appropriately and logically.
Law:
Draft a document which is legally correct.
Draft a document which is legally comprehensive, identifying any ethical and professional conduct issues and exercising judgment to resolve them honestly and with integrity.
PI 1: Language — A Goldilocks Problem
Most prep materials treat this PI as "write clearly." The SRA's actual criteria are more specific — and more demanding — than that.
Both extremes are failure modes. You fail if your answer is "wordy, repetitive, or confusing." You also fail if "the meaning cannot be ascertained because it contains too few words." The target: as few words as possible without compromising the quality of the answer.
The formality balance is equally precise. Language must be "suitably formal for the document being drafted" — but the SRA also explicitly flags "unnecessary technical terms/legal jargon throughout" as a failure. Too casual fails. Too jargon-heavy also fails. The standard is: correct legal terminology where the law genuinely requires it, plain formal English everywhere else.
After drafting, ask: Is every sentence earning its place? Is the formality level right? Am I using a technical term because the law requires it, or because it sounds legal?
PI 2: Structure — Signposts and Purpose
The SRA's criteria describe a competent candidate as one who presents information "in a methodical way" where "appropriate sign posts are used to guide the reader through the document" and the document "achieves its purpose."
Two things worth unpacking.
Signposting is functional, not stylistic. Clear headings, defined terms, numbered clauses — these tools help the reader navigate. A document without them makes the reader do the navigation work themselves. That's a structural failure, and the SRA marks it as one.
Achieving its purpose is the real test of structure. A commercial agreement should leave both parties clear on their rights and obligations. If someone finishes your document and is left uncertain about its point, you've failed PI 2 regardless of how neatly it's arranged.
The SRA's failure modes — disjointed arrangement, illogical sequencing, failure to achieve purpose — almost always stem from the same root cause: starting to write before planning the structure. Two minutes mapping your sections before you type anything will prevent nearly all of them.
PI 3: Legally Correct — Two Parts, Not One
"Legally correct" is more precise than it sounds. The SRA splits it into two distinct requirements.
Part one: correct legal principles, correctly applied. Know the right legal mechanisms for the scenario and use them accurately. Guarantee vs indemnity. UCTA vs Consumer Rights Act. The formality requirements for a deed. Getting these wrong makes the document legally incorrect regardless of how well it's drafted.
Part two: legally effective. The SRA's criteria explicitly include whether "the document contains all key information or the names of relevant parties." A contract that doesn't name the parties isn't legally effective. An agreement missing consideration isn't legally effective. Under time pressure, it's easy to focus on sophisticated legal content and miss the foundations. Check both layers.
There's no technique that substitutes for knowing the law on PI 3. It's a direct test of your FLK revision — the clearest argument for active recall over passive reading.
PI 4: Legally Comprehensive — and the SRA Principles
This is where the most marks are quietly lost.
Legally comprehensive means "sufficiently detailed in the context of the client's situation and the relevant factual and legal issues." Not detailed in the abstract — detailed for this specific client and their specific situation. The trap is tunnel vision: you see "draft a sale clause" and draft only that, missing the broader context the scenario raises. A comprehensive document responds to all of it.
The ethics element is where candidates most commonly underperform. The SRA requires you to "exercise effective judgment in addressing [ethical issues] in accordance with the SRA Principles and rules of professional conduct." That last phrase is not decorative. When an ethical issue arises, the question is: which SRA Principle is engaged, and what does it require of me?
The critical point most candidates miss: noticing the issue is not resolving it. The PI requires effective judgment in addressing it — that means a concrete response, not a vague flag.
Before finalising every answer:
Is this sufficiently detailed for the specific client situation — not just the headline ask?
Does anything engage an SRA Principle? Which one, and what does it require?
The One Habit That Converts Practice Into Marks
Most candidates review practice drafts by comparing them to the model answer and thinking "close enough." That's approximation, not improvement.
Proper review means checking against each PI explicitly:
PI 1: Right formality level? Jargon-free where it should be?
PI 2: Methodical flow, clear signposts, achieves its purpose?
PI 3: Right legal principles correctly applied? Legally effective at the basic level?
PI 4: Sufficiently detailed for this specific situation? SRA Principle engaged and genuinely resolved?
Build this into every session and you will improve faster than candidates who are simply drafting and comparing outputs.
Where MyLawMate Fits In
The Practice Bundle at MyLawMate includes Legal Drafting practice questions with model answers built around the SRA's actual performance indicators. They're written by someone who's sat SQE2 — not a course provider working from a textbook — and they're designed to be reviewed critically against the four PIs, not just read and filed away.
If you want the full exam simulation, the Full Mock Bundle integrates Legal Drafting with all five written and oral skills across five days of timed practice — at a fraction of what the institutional providers charge.
SQE2 prep should be built around the right criteria. That's what MyLawMate is here for.
Practice Bundle — Legal Drafting practice built on the SRA's actual performance indicators. Realistic answers. Exam-ready. Accessible price.
Comments