header-logo header-logo

Anger as compensation levy triples

01 October 2024
Issue: 8088 / Categories: Legal News , Regulatory , Profession
printer mail-detail

Solicitors’ contributions to the Compensation Fund are to rise from £30 to £90 for individuals and from £660 to £2,220 for firms, the Legal Services Board (LSB) has confirmed

The increases, due to take effect this month as solicitors renew their practising certificates, have arisen as a result of Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) interventions ‘into 65 legal services practices in 2022/23 including Metamorph Group and Axiom Ince’, the SRA said. This brought total expenditure from the fund to £64.9m, up from £22.4m the previous year.

Consequently, the fund’s reserves dropped to a low point of £18.7m in July 2023.

The SRA says it anticipates collecting £31.6m in 2024/25—a ‘significant’ increase on this year’s £10m—which it considers ‘will set the Compensation Fund at a level where it can continue to be managed on a sound financial basis’.

However, Law Society chief executive officer Ian Jeffery described the increase as ‘deeply concerning’.

Jeffery said: ‘We also strongly encourage the SRA to prioritise its focus on core activities and only undertake additional workstreams based on evidence of regulatory need, or specific gaps in responding to consumer needs, rather than looking for additional fining powers.

‘In our consultation response, the Law Society asked the SRA to reconsider how the levy was apportioned, to ensure the burden was distributed fairly, and to take proactive measures to prevent future substantial claims. Solicitors are steadfast in their wide support for the Compensation Fund, as a vital protection for clients, and it clearly delineates the profession from unregulated providers of legal services.’

Tensions between the Law Society and SRA have also escalated over proposals to increase fining powers on solicitors. In June, the SRA proposed introducing two more fining bands: Band E, 6-10% of a firm’s annual domestic turnover and 113-115% of an individual’s income; and Band F, 11-25% of annual domestic turnover and upwards of 145% of an individual’s income.

However, Law Society vice president Richard Atkinson said the proposals were ‘unfair, disproportionate and potentially unlawful’, and risked cutting the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal ‘out of the process’ even though the tribunal has a wider range of sanctions available.

Issue: 8088 / Categories: Legal News , Regulatory , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll