Would you give the Law Society £250?

Posted by Neil Rose, Editor, Legal Futures

The Law Society: solicitors don't have to be members, but they still have to contribute to its upkeep

The Law Society: solicitors don’t have to be members, but they still have to contribute to its upkeep

It is not a massive exaggeration to say that the Law Society will be fighting for its existence in the months to come. The government’s intention to make the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) entirely independent from the society will inevitably raise the question of whether what will then be purely a representative body should still be able to take a slice of the fees that solicitors pay for regulation.

This issue applies also to all the other parts of the regulated legal profession – except for licensed conveyancers and notaries, whose regulators are already completely separate – but as by far the biggest and, dare I suggest, least popular of the representative bodies out there, I intend to concentrate on what this means for the Law Society.

The Law Society (and Bar Council, Chartered Institute of Legal Executives etc) are named in the Legal Services Act 2007 as the approved regulators of their parts of the profession. The society has delegated its regulatory responsibilities to the SRA, but remains ultimately responsible for regulating solicitors. The SRA is operationally independent, but not structurally – it remains part of the Law Society ‘group’.

As such, on behalf of the group, the Law Society levies the cost of SRA regulation through practising fees which have to be approved by the Law Society council and ultimately the Legal Services Board. However, under section 51 of the Act, the society is also able to recoup the cost of so-called ‘permitted purposes’, activities that are not regulatory but are seen as being in the public interest, such as advice to solicitors on practice management and law reform work. See the full scope in section 51(4) here.

Of the £105.8m raised from practising fees in 2015/16, £54.1m went to the SRA and £35.3m to the Law Society under section 51 (the rest went on the levies for the Legal Services Board, Legal Ombudsman and Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal). Despite its commercial activities, this is overwhelmingly Chancery Lane’s main source of income. The SRA says this amounts to around £250 per solicitor, a figure the society disputes.

It is a little-known fact that you don’t have to be a member of the Law Society to be a solicitor, but either way you still have to pay for it.

However, if the SRA achieves full independence and becomes the approved regulator, it is widely agreed that section 51 will have to be revisited. It is thought that the law is the only profession whose representative bodies are funded in this way and certainly if you look at wider trade union reform, compulsory levies have been consigned to history.

If this happened, then solicitors would for the first time be given a choice of whether they wanted to pay for the upkeep of their representative body (whether this is an opt-in or opt-out will be an interesting question down the track).

A fun parlour game is to guess how many of the current 130,000 practising solicitors would choose to do so. Nobody predicts a high number – the City law firms, for example, are likely to pick up their ball and focus their efforts on the City of London Law Society. Personal injury lawyers may think they are better off having the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers speak for them, and so on.

Of course, the fewer solicitors who did sign up, the more they would have to pay. The society would no doubt start offering corporate membership so that firms, rather than individuals, pay up, but it comes back to this question: What has the Law Society ever done for me?

Unfortunately, unlike the Romans, they did not build the aqueducts, although to judge by the self-congratulatory tone of many of the Law Society committee papers I read – talking of various successes, positive press coverage, and a good reputation with parliamentarians – this may come as a surprise to some at Chancery Lane.

In fact, rather than proving its worth to its members, the Law Society has recently only been doing the opposite.

Take Veyo, the embarrassing, failed conveyancing IT project that has cost the profession £7m. Let’s just pause a moment on that figure – £7m. More than many law firms earn in a year.

Aside from an apology, there has been no accountability, no shake-up to prevent such a disaster recurring. A hundred members of the Law Society’s council and not a peep from any of them. It’s only apathy among solicitors that is letting the society get away with this.

Then there is its role in representing solicitors. Last month, when the latest row about SRA independence erupted, the Law Society hit out stridently at the SRA, suggesting it was seeking to undermine Chancery Lane. It was strong, punchy stuff.

The following day, Prime Minister David Cameron attacked claimant solicitors for creating “an industry trying to profit from spurious claims lodged against our brave servicemen and women who fought in Iraq”. There was blanket media coverage. So, did the Law Society hit back with the same kind of verve with which it defended itself 24 hours earlier? Sadly not.

Around seven hours after Mr Cameron had made headlines with his comments, the society put out this statement – far too slow a reaction in modern news cycles but who would have covered it anyway? To call it mealy mouthed would be a compliment.

Where was the fight on behalf of its members and, indeed, the rule of law? On that day, the Law Society failed both.

(Similarly, at 5pm of the Monday of that week, the Insurance Fraud Taskforce issued its report that placed plenty of blame at the feet of solicitors. The Law Society did not send its reaction until 1.50pm on the Thursday.)

It is possible that the society was hesitant about hitting back at Mr Cameron for fear of upsetting the negotiations that were going on over criminal legal aid contracts, which were scrapped the following week to widespread delight.

The society shares the credit for this – its head of legal aid, Richard Miller, and others have worked tirelessly on the profession’s behalf – but the Justice Alliance, Criminal Law Solicitors Association and London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association take more of it. They have been more vocal and aggressive in taking the fight to the government, and this has prevailed, albeit I imagine with the quiet support of the society.

Indeed, it is important to note that the society, and in particular its specialist committees, do a lot of quiet and effective work on behalf of the profession on detailed issues of law and practice. But few will see this as enough of a reason to fork out £250.

One of the reasons it did not call on legal aid solicitors to head for the barricades was a fear of breaking the law. Just last year, then president Andrew Caplen explained: “It is the longstanding position of the society that it cannot support, organise or lead collective action. The society is not a trade union and it cannot call its members out on strike or encourage them to take collective action. It would be unlawful under the Competition Act for us to call for, organise or lead collective action.”

This sounds like an awfully good reason for the Law Society to become a trade union – the kind of bold leadership shown of late by the British Medical Association on behalf of junior doctors is, I wager, what solicitors would like to see. But even if it could, I’m not sure that culturally it would be able to take such a step.

The recently published strategy overseen by chief executive Catherine Dixon promises that the society will promote, support and represent solicitors. This begs the question of what it’s been doing up until now – I say that facetiously, but many solicitors will consider it a serious question. How many other organisations with 160,000 members (if you include in-house lawyers and non-practising members) cannot drum up enough interest from a few hundred of them to hold an annual conference (there hasn’t been one for a decade or so)?

Yet getting anything done at Chancery Lane, from my experience of working there until 2008, is far from easy. It is a stifling bureaucracy (from what I can gather it hasn’t changed much since my time) with a council sitting at the top that, from the outside, seems to do precious little at not inconsiderable cost.

The Law Society has to change and become a body of which solicitors actually want to be members. There is much it could do for the benefit of both the profession and the public, and now is the time to do it, and be seen to do it. It needs to be bolder, more decisive and faster to act.

I’m not holding out my hopes, however. But acting after the section 51 meteor has hit Chancery Lane will be too late.

    Readers Comments

  • Rob Hailstone says:

    I think it is a bit harsh to say it is ‘apathy’ that allows the Law Society to get way with the Veyo debacle. I have yet to find a conveyancing solicitor who is not outraged by the handing of Veyo, both pre demise (whether there was a pre period is a moot point), and post demise. With fraud issues to deal with and consultation after consultation, finding the time etc. to tackle the Law Society is difficult. In any event, the time to strike a blow might not be right now. However, Veyo could be the first serious crack in the dam.

  • Paul Gilbert says:

    …an important piece Neil and an even more important time. The local law societies can still thrive, largely because they have a clear purpose and broadly fulfil that purpose. The struggle for the national Society is that it does not have a compelling purpose. As you rightly identify its “strategy”, as articulated, sounds like corporate puff. Personally I believe it can have that compelling purpose, but not while it lacks courage to change more than a few web pages or just wants to spin a new strap-line. The vested interests are formidable, but the leadership seems much less so. And the worst thing of all is that I suspect there not be anger over a failing Society, because right now people just don’t care. Death by apathy, how sad is that.

  • Richard Long says:

    The only hope for the Law Society is if it can become an organisation that truly represents solicitors. First it has to be one that solicitors have a choice about belonging and want to belong. If I had a choice I certainly wouldn’t join it now.

  • Howard Finger says:

    Neil, thanks for opening this overdue debate. Is it The Law Society’s fear of losing its share of practising fees that is driving it to acquire equity interests in third party commercial services and software providers and then refusing to bring competitive, offerings to its members attention?

  • Jim Knight says:

    Neil, I am a Costs Lawyer and one among a growing number who no longer have confidence in our professional Association. I am regulated by the Costs Lawyers Standard Board and my firm pays that organisation a yearly fee for my practising certificate and those of my partners and colleagues. However, I am now no longer a member of the Association of Costs Lawyers as I, and a growing number of my colleagues, have become far from impressed by the perceived lack of representation we receive. As a result, and as we are no longer obliged to remain members of our professional body, a large number of the Costs Lawyers at my firm are no longer Members of the Association of Costs Lawyers. I am also aware of at least one other long established, and well respected firm with a nationwide presence, that has made a concious decision not to renew membership for its staff this year. I believe that the Law Society can expect to find itself in the same boat as the ACL before too long, unless it can demonstrate that in future it will strive to become more representative of the professionals that it purports to represent. Even as a non-solicitor, I have been surprised at the lack of leadership provided by the Law Society at such an important time for its membership, particularly those specialising in civil litigation.

  • Dean Jones says:


  • Barbara Muldoon says:

    This article presupposes a homogeneous group. It ignores the reality that tens of thousands of solicitors have competing interests with the solicitors who head up and own their firms. Instead of playing parlour games about “City Law Firms”, why don’t we play the guessing game of how many solicitors collect tax credits to supplement their miserable salaries? You talk about “corporate rates”? That offers more of the same. Why don’t we ask the question “How many of us would pay for a proper trade union that would fight for our rights as workers”?

  • Lorimer says:

    The English Law profession not only needs to modernise and offer transparency in billing, but most importantly regain its reputation and credibility with the public; The only way they can gain credibility with the public is for its regulators /watchdog to be entirely independent.

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Loading animation