You open the SQE2 assessment, read a two-page memo from a supervising partner, and there it is: a client with three commercial options, a pile of documents, and a request for your written analysis and recommendation. The clock is running. Where do you even start? Most candidates who struggle with Case and Matter Analysis do not lack legal knowledge — they lack a repeatable method. This post gives you one.
What SQE2 Case and Matter Analysis Actually Tests
Case and Matter Analysis is one of the five skills examined in SQE2, alongside Client Interviewing, Advocacy, Legal Research and Legal Writing/Drafting. It is assessed as a written exercise on the Pearson VUE closed platform — no browser, no internet, just you, the papers on screen and a word processor with Ctrl+F.
The task usually asks you to do three things at once. Read a bundle of source material (correspondence, contracts, a witness account, some figures). Work out what the client actually needs. Then produce a structured piece of writing — often an attendance note, a note to the partner, or a letter of advice — that sets out the options, weighs them and lands on a clear recommendation.
Crucially, the SRA assesses both your application of law and your practical skill. You can quote the right principle and still lose marks if your advice is vague, badly organised, or fails to tell the client what to do next. Think of it as the day-one trainee test: can you turn a messy file into a decision?
Read the Papers Like a Solicitor, Not a Student
Students read to understand. Solicitors read to decide. That shift matters enormously under exam pressure.
Start with the instruction — the covering note from the partner — and find the express question. What are you being asked to produce, and for whom? Underline the deliverable. If the note says "advise on whether Mr Ahmed should accept the settlement offer", every sentence you write should serve that question. Anything that does not is wasted time.
Then read the substantive documents with a simple filter in your head: relevant facts, gaps, and dates. A great many Case and Matter Analysis problems hide a limitation issue, a missed deadline, or a term buried in a contract clause. Ctrl+F is your friend here — search for names, dates, figures and defined terms rather than re-reading paragraphs three times.
Build a quick timeline as you read. Even a rough list of dates — contract signed, breach, first complaint, offer made — will expose limitation problems and sequencing issues that a linear read will miss.
A Written Answer Plan That Travels Across Every Question
Here is a structure you can carry into any Case and Matter Analysis task. It is deliberately plain, because plain scores.
1. Issue. Open by naming the client's real problem in one or two sentences. Not the law — the problem. "The client wants to recover the £40,000 deposit and decide whether to sue or settle."
2. Relevant law, applied. State the principle briefly, then apply it to the facts immediately. Do not write an essay on the doctrine. If the matter turns on a duty of care, one line on Donoghue v Stevenson and then straight into whether this defendant owed this claimant a duty. If it is a partnership dispute, note the default position under the Partnership Act 1890 and apply it to the actual agreement in the papers.
3. Options. Set out the realistic courses of action — usually two or three. Litigate, negotiate, walk away. Accept the offer, counter-offer, reject. For each, give the upside, the downside and the risk. Commercial reality counts: cost, time, relationship with the other side, and prospects of success all belong here.
4. Recommendation. Choose. This is where nervous candidates hedge, and hedging costs marks. The examiner wants a solicitor's judgement, not a shrug. Recommend one option and explain, in a sentence or two, why it beats the others for this particular client.
5. Next steps. End with concrete actions. Obtain the missing invoice, take fuller instructions on the timeline, send a letter before action, diarise the limitation date. This section signals that you think like a practitioner, and it is quick to write.
Notice how portable this is. Whether the matter is contentious or transactional, whether it draws on FLK1 subjects like Contract or Tort or FLK2 subjects like Property or Trusts, the five-part shape holds. You are simply changing the legal filling.
Turning Facts into Advice: A Worked Example
Suppose the papers show a small company that ordered bespoke machinery. The machinery arrived six weeks late and, on the client's account, does not meet the agreed specification. The supplier has offered a partial refund. The client asks whether to accept.
A weak answer recites the law on breach of contract and stops. A strong answer works the file. It identifies the relevant term (was the specification a condition or a warranty?), checks whether time was of the essence, and asks whether the late delivery and the defect are the same breach or two. It notes any exclusion clause and whether it would survive under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Then it turns to remedy: is the client better off claiming damages for the difference in value, or does it want to reject the goods entirely?
From there the options fall out naturally. Accept the partial refund (certain, quick, but under-compensates). Negotiate for more (preserves the relationship, moderate cost). Issue proceedings (strongest leverage, highest cost and delay). The recommendation depends on the numbers and the client's appetite — but you must pick, and say why. That final judgement is exactly what separates a pass from a marginal fail.
Common Mistakes That Cost Marks
Over-writing the law is the classic trap. Case and Matter Analysis is not a knowledge dump; the knowledge is assumed. Two sentences of accurate principle beat two paragraphs of textbook.
Ignoring commercial factors is another. Clients care about cost, timing and outcome, not doctrinal elegance. If you never mention money or delay, your advice reads like an academic answer, not a solicitor's.
Then there is the failure to commit. Options without a recommendation is a half-finished job. And poor structure — long unbroken paragraphs, no headings, buried conclusions — makes the assessor work to find your good points. Use short paragraphs and clear signposts so the marker can see your reasoning at a glance.
Quick self-check before you submit: Have I answered the exact question asked? Have I applied law to these facts? Have I given options with pros and cons? Have I recommended one? Have I set out next steps? Five yeses is a confident pass.
How to Practise Before Exam Day
Reading model answers is useful, but it will not build the muscle. You need to write full analyses under timed conditions, then compare your reasoning against a strong version — not just the conclusion, but the route to it. Do this five or six times and the five-part plan becomes automatic, freeing your attention for the law and the facts.
Practise on a keyboard, not on paper. The real thing happens on the Pearson VUE platform, so get comfortable typing structured advice and using Ctrl+F to navigate a bundle at speed. Little habits like defining your headings first, then filling them, save precious minutes.
If you are still working through SQE1 — the two FLK1 and FLK2 papers of 180 single best answer questions each — do not treat SQE2 as a distant worry. The application skills you build now, reasoning from facts to a conclusion, are the same ones Case and Matter Analysis rewards later.
At CELE SQE we have coached candidates through this skill since the first sitting in 2021, and our SQE2 Course is £1,450 and includes 61 full mock questions built 1:1 to the official SRA format, so you practise on realistic Case and Matter Analysis tasks with feedback rather than guesswork. If you would like a look before committing, message us on WeChat SQE100, email [email protected], or visit celebar.com — no pressure, just a straight answer about whether it fits your timeline.