The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) describes the current practising fee structure as ‘far from logical’ in a discussion paper launched this week. Quite so. Why should a bulk firm with an army of paralegals and very few solicitors pay so little in regulation, when a top-end, lawyer-rich niche practice pays so much? New rules based on turnover must produce a more sensible result.

For employed solicitors, who are so cheap to regulate, their long-fought battle for a lower fee seems to have been won. But there may still be gripes that they will probably have to pay into the compensation fund, even though they do not handle client money.

As the SRA points out, while it is looking for greater fairness, this is still a ‘zero-sum game’. The tab for any savings made by the employed sector will have to be picked up elsewhere. But it will not necessarily be the City that foots the bill. For the big City players, the new turnover levy may largely be offset by the lower individual fee they will pay for their many solicitors.

The new rules will follow a ‘polluter pays’ ethos, but only up to a point. As the SRA admits, a true risk-based approach would heap almost all the cost on to sole practitioners, despite the ‘vast majority’ being honest. With so many sole practitioners struggling, the regulator must take care that the new fees do not push them over the edge.