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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

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