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

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