header-logo header-logo

24 October 2013
Issue: 7581 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Referral fee caution

SRA issues warning note on risky behaviour by PI lawyers

Personal injury lawyers have been cautioned against risky behaviour that could fall foul of the referral fees ban.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) fired out a warning note last week amid concerns that firms may be indulging in behaviour that flouts the 1 April ban. 

It also warned that it knows of “numerous” examples of firms complying with referral fees but potentially breaching other parts of the code of conduct.

According to the SRA, claims management companies have been asking firms to pay them a proportion of clients’ damages in return for a referral, or even to forward them the client’s damages, which may not be in the client’s best interests. 

Other potential breaches include arranging for clients to buy insurance reports or other products at inflated prices so the introducer receives a higher rate of commission, and not being sufficiently transparent about the arrangement.

Richard Collins, SRA executive director, says: “Worryingly, we are beginning to see some examples of firms that—in their desire to maintain a volume of new clients in a manner compliant with the referral fee ban—have not paid sufficient attention to compliance with the broader, and longstanding, regulatory requirements regarding referrals. We will take formal enforcement action.”

Deborah Evans, chief executive of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, says: “We’ve always believed a ban on referral fees would be difficult to enforce but, now that a ban is in place, it is the responsibility of solicitors to ensure they are not in breach of it, the responsibility of insurers and brokers to ensure they don’t profit from any breach, and the responsibility of the SRA to ensure it is enforced.”

The warning note can be read here.

Issue: 7581 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll