Evans: Holding the SRA to account
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) should consider reductions for legal aid firms if it goes ahead with plans for a 29%, or £25m, increase in its funding, the Law Society has said.
Describing the proposed increases for the 2026-27 practising year as “a bitter pill driven by past institutional weakness”, president Mark Evans said there were “strong and widespread concerns from the profession” both about the practising certificate (PC) fee increases and huge rises in Compensation Fund contributions.
These would increase Individual contributions to the fund by 71%, from £70 to £120, with firm contributions up 85% from £1,950 to £3,600.
Responding to the consultation on the SRA’s draft business plan, the society there was “a strong case for the SRA to implement targeted adjustments” to PC fees for law firms undertaking “significant volumes” of publicly funded work.
“The legal aid sector continues to operate under acute and longstanding financial pressure, with evidence indicating that, in many cases, the rates paid do not fully cover the cost of delivering services.
“In this context, there is a clear public interest in ensuring the continued viability of firms willing to undertake this work, given its central importance to access to justice.”
If no action was taken, there was “a real risk that sustained increases in regulatory costs will accelerate withdrawal from legally aided work, reduce pro bono capacity and further weaken access to justice, particularly in underserved areas”.
The society said the scale of the proposed funding increase sought by the SRA, which would increase the regulator’s proportion of the PC fee from £190 to £240, made it “imperative that the SRA demonstrates clear, measurable and independently verifiable improvements” in performance.
“Without tangible evidence of positive change, there is a significant risk that these proposals will further erode trust and confidence rather than rebuild it.”
The society said that “more generally, there is a perception across the profession that the current proposals do not yet fully reflect the scale of concern or frustration arising from recent events”, such as the collapses of Axiom Ince and PM Law.
The society said it supported the SRA’s decision to “deprioritise or pause certain areas of work that, while important, are not core to immediate consumer protection or professional standards, including further work on quality indicators, digital comparison tools, and suggestions of taking over the regulation of CILEX professionals”.
On the Post Office inquiry and professional ethics, it repeated earlier warnings about the risk of “over‑extrapolating from exceptional or high‑profile cases – such as those considered by the inquiry – to draw broad conclusions about professional behaviour”.
This could result in an “over‑correction or to the imposition of standards and expectations that are not well calibrated to the realities of wider professional practice”.
While the society accepted that increased compensation fund contributions were necessary for 2026/27, it expected a “clear commitment from the SRA to longer-term reform” and a “thorough review of the underlying funding model”.
The society said that “on balance” it was better to keep to a 50/50 apportionment of contributions between individuals and firms for 2026/27, rather than moving to 70/30.
“While we acknowledge that a 70/30 split could mitigate some of the immediate impact on smaller firms, it would do so by transferring a significantly greater share of the burden onto individual solicitors.”
Mr Evans said any increase in PC fees “should not be a penny more than is necessary” and “deliver real and lasting change” at the SRA.
“Persistent concerns among solicitors about inconsistent decision-making, delays and variable investigator capability, have undermined confidence in the regulator, and need to be addressed.
“The SRA’s plans to improve operational capacity and capability must be accompanied by culture change. This should include a shift away from overly process-driven and enforcement-led approaches and a greater emphasis on supporting compliance.
“As a representative body we will act to hold the SRA to account. Our guarded acceptance of the need for more investment in its core regulatory functions is not a green light for year-on-year increases.”
In its response, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers focused on the compensation fund and argued that a flat rate for all firms holding client money was “inappropriate”.
“We believe that the SRA should explore the possibility of setting different rates for different firms. While simplistic, one size fits all does not reward those firms that have good practices in place, hold accreditations, involve external auditors, and have PII in place, for example.”
Leave a Comment