header-logo header-logo

21 January 2010
Issue: 7401 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

PC fee system "clearly unfair"

In-house lawyers step up campaign against fee anomalies.

The Commerce and Industry Group (CIG), which represents more than 4,500 in-house lawyers across the UK, last week published an open letter calling on the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to immediately implement Lord Hunt’s recommendations for a split practising certificate fee.

In his Review of the Regulation of Legal Services last October, Lord Hunt advocated that the fee be “equitably split between an entity element and an individual element” and that in-house solicitors pay the individual element only.

CIG’s open letter—addressed to the SRA, the Law Society and the Legal Services Board—also flags up research it conducted among more than 200 in-house lawyers.

Nine out of 10 respondents approved of differential fees and said in-house lawyers should pay less. Three-quarters of respondents believed the Law Society’s 20% hike of the 2010 fee was not justified.

Bill Graydon, CIG chief executive, says: “The group has been actively lobbying in recent years to find a fair solution for our membership regarding the practising certificate fee.

“Our members have lived with an annual fee which is excessive for far too long. We urge the SRA to adopt these recommendations and to carry out implementation at the earliest opportunity.”

The SRA has recognised the anomalies of the current system and is currently consulting on a new fee structure. Respondents had to comment by today on proposals outlined in the SRA’s paper, Moving Towards a Fairer Fee Policy.

Antony Townsend, SRA chief executive, says: “The current fee system is clearly unfair, and we are keen to encourage as much input as possible from the profession to help us achieve a fairer and simpler system. The new proposals, which are for a combination of individual and firm-based fees, would mean lower costs for in-house lawyers, who would not pay the firm-based fee.”

Issue: 7401 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll