header-logo header-logo

25 February 2010
Issue: 7406 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

SRA fee shifting proposals

40/60 split will shift fee burden of 15% from in-house sector onto private practice

The practising certificate is to be split 40/60 between individuals and law firms under Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) proposals approved last week.

Under the new regime, due to come into effect in October, individual solicitors will pay 40% of the overall amount, and law firms will pay 60%. This will result in a shift in fee burden of 15% from the in-house sector onto private practice firms. Solicitors in commerce and industry and government posts will only pay the individual fee, likely to be about £511. Firms will pay according to turnover, calculated on a banded basis.

Under current draft SRA board proposals, not yet agreed, there would be ten bands, A-J. Firms would pay 0.67% on the first £20,000, 0.59% on the next £20,000 to £150,000, and 0.54% on the next level up to £500,000. Turnover between £1m and £4m would be charged at 0.8%. Individual solicitors will be required to put £9 towards compensation fund fees, while firms will contribute £140.

Legal consultant Simon Young says: “Overall, the burden for private practice will rise considerably as they mop up the 60% from the public sector and commerce and industry. “Those with a high ratio of non-solicitor fee earners to solicitors will be affected the most. If you have two or three solicitors and 40 legal executives then you are going to have to pay a considerable amount more. Whether the 60/40 ratio is correct remains to be seen, and the SRA has acknowledged this, but we have to start somewhere. This may be quite painful for some firms but they’ve all been given plenty of notice.”

Splitting the practising certificate fee between entities and individuals was recommended by Lord Hunt of Wirral in his 2009 review into legal regulation. The Legal Services Act 2007 required the Law Society to adopt firm-based regulation as well as regulating individual solicitors. The SRA board considers the current fee charging system to be unfair on in-house solicitors.
 

Issue: 7406 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll