The Law Society yesterday raised ‘widespread and serious’ concerns about the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s bid for a big rise in funding – but stopped short of calling on the oversight regulator to block it. 

Responding to the SRA’s consultation on its proposed 2026/27 business plan, the Society expressed ‘guarded acceptance’ of the need for more investment. However, it said the need for more money ‘is largely to fund remedial action to fix problems of the SRA’s own making’.

‘It is solicitors, already dealing with higher costs and heavy regulatory burdens, who are having to pay the price,’ said Society president Mark Evans. ‘Any increase should not be a penny more than is necessary, and it should deliver real and lasting change at the SRA. Success must be demonstrated through measurable improvements in effectiveness, consistency and trust.’

The SRA is proposing a 29% increase in its overall funding requirement, to £111.5m. If approved by the Legal Services Board, this would raise the regulator’s slice of individual practising certificate fees from £190 to £240. This will be accompanied by higher compensation fund contributions. 

Channelling ‘strong and widespread concerns’ from the profession, Evans added: ‘The SRA’s need for increased funding is a bitter pill driven by past institutional weakness.’ The resulting financial pressure on the profession poses risks to market sustainability, to consumers of legal services and access to justice. The Society wants the SRA to investigate the possibility of targeted fee reductions for legal aid firms.

Elsewhere in the response, Evans said he was relieved to see that the SRA had dropped its ambition to take over the regulation of CILEX professionals. ‘This was a wasteful distraction from the regulator’s core responsibilities, which we had opposed from the start,’ he said. ‘The SRA must prioritise high-risk issues more rigorously, ensuring resources are focused on matters posing the greatest risk to the public, rather than lower-impact or easier cases.’

He stressed that the Society’s ‘guarded acceptance’ of the SRA’s business plan ‘is not a green light for year-on-year increases’.