Review: 'one side should not be subsidising another side,' says former C&I chairwoman

The Lord Chancellor appeared to support a lower practising certificate fee for in-house lawyers last week.


Lord Falconer told delegates at the Law Society's Commerce & Industry (C&I) Group conference in London that the cost of regulation should be 'divided fairly and proportionately among those who are subject to that regulation'.


He added: 'That means fair divides between different types of practitioner, and possibly between different individuals. If you don't generate undue regulatory costs, you should not be, and you will not be, unduly burdened.'


Law Society President Kevin Martin said he acknowledged that there was a problem, and that the issue was under review. He said: 'I know that the C&I Group is actively lobbying on changes to the practising certificate fee, and so we will be looking at this issue in the round during the detailed planning phase of our review. We will be considering a number of options, including the possibility of differential fees to be applied to different sectors of the profession. Of course, any change in this direction would be subject to legislation being passed which would permit this.'


Mr Martin said there may be three separate aspects to the new fee: one relating to the proposed offfice of legal complaints, a practising fee element and a voluntary contribution.


The C&I Group has argued that in-house lawyers should pay a lower practising certificate fee because their clients do not benefit from the Solicitors Compensation Fund.


Former C&I chairwoman Carol Williams, head of legal at Northern Foods, said: 'We do not generate risk, in which case we should not be paying for the risk created by other members of the profession. One side of the profession should not be subsidising another side - cost should lie where the risk resides.'


She added: 'We have been asking the Law Society for ten years to say how many in-house lawyers' clients have laid a claim on the [compensation] fund. The Law Society has never come up with the information. It would seem that such a claim has never been made.'