The Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS) came into effect on 1 September, replacing the old Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test (QLTT) route to requalification as an English solicitor. While there is only one word different in their colloquial titles, the detailed differences are significant.

The old QLTT route was taken by significant numbers of entrants to the profession annually but it needed updating to ensure entrants were rigourously assessed in broadly the same way as entrants following the domestic route. There were questions over the value of the work experience requirements imposed on some QLTT entrants and there was a need to broaden the list of 'eligible jurisdictions'.

Looking at the key changes in turn, are the right jurisdictions now covered by the new scheme? The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) had to take into account the obligation to afford no less-favourable treatment to some World Trade Organisation members than others and the extension of the list of eligible jurisdictions that followed has been welcomed by many.

Many firms recruit on a global basis and the option of being able to qualify in England can be a significant factor in recruits choosing an English firm over, say, a US one. Therefore, there was some anticipation over the revised list – but the one published on 1 September raised eyebrows. There were surprising omissions, for example, there was no sign of most of the US states, nor Canada, India and South Africa.

This was not a result of some shock decision to exclude them; rather, only those jurisdictions whose Bar Associations/Law Societies had returned the SRA's eligibility questionnaire showing they met the required criteria before the QLTS launch deadline appeared. More jurisdictions will be added and indeed the list has been updated with many (but not yet all) of the old QLTT jurisdictions now appearing. In terms of new jurisdictions, there are welcome additions – among others, China, Russia, Japan and many South American jurisdictions.

However, one group which has definitely been excluded is barristers who have not completed pupillage – they will have to follow the domestic route to qualification.

Dropping the work experience requirement is seen by some as a retrograde step, as QTLS qualifiers can now become solicitors without ever having practised English and Welsh law. Others saw the work experience requirement as a time-served process of little value to qualified (and in many cases specialised/experienced) practitioners. The SRA's argument is that the nature of the new assessment regime is such that it would be difficult to pass without some experience of practice in English and Welsh law.

That brings us to the assessment regime – arguably the most significant change. The assessments are designed to test applicants on most of the day one outcomes – the standards a solicitor who qualifies via the domestic route is expected to have achieved at admission. The assessments are in three parts:

- Part one is a multiple choice test on the applicant's understanding of the basics of English and Welsh law.

- Part two is a practical examination testing interviewing and advocacy skills in the context of business, civil and criminal litigation, and property and probate.

- Part three is a technical legal skills test assessing legal research, drafting and writing skills.

The new regime represents a significant increase in the assessment obligations of applicants, and the requirements imposed on European Union, intra-UK and Swiss applicants will depend on their experience to date.

A single organisation (Kaplan QLTS, which cannot also offer tuition) will run the assessments and the full cost of all the elements will be £3,230 plus VAT. As tuition costs will be in addition, the new route will be considerably more expensive for most applicants than the QLTT.

Will the cost put off would-be applicants? That must be a possibility, especially as it is possible (subject to some restrictions) for international lawyers to practise English law without requalifying.

Improving standards underpins the thinking behind the new scheme and cost, within limits, should not influence the design. However, if cost deters many from following this route, the benefits of the new scheme will be at least reduced and it runs the risk of declining in importance.

Tony King is the chairman of the City of London Law Society's training committee.