The Solicitors Regulation Authority may face a judicial review challenge over claims that it unfairly penalises in-house lawyers, the Gazette has learned.

The Commerce and Industry Group, which represents in-house lawyers across the country, claims that an ambiguity in the SRA code of conduct has led to some of its members facing criminal sanctions. The problem arises over the need for a practising certificate when working in-house. Some lawyers, who assume they do not need a certificate but later change their minds, are being reprimanded as a result, the group says.

The SRA said this week that it has changed the disputed provision in its new code, which is awaiting statutory approval.

But Tony Guise, a partner at London firm Guise and counsel for the C&I Group, said the amendment does not go far enough, and the ‘bottom line’ will be to bring a judicial review action against the SRA.

The conflict centres on the wording of section 20 of the code. In-house lawyers are not required to hold a practising certificate in a number of situations. However they must hold one if they undertake ‘business services’, which the code does not define.

Guise said that in-house lawyers who had believed they did not undertake business services, but later applied for a practising certificate to do so, are being fined and reprimanded by the SRA for practising without a certificate – a criminal offence.

An SRA spokeswoman said the SRA has changed section 20’s wording to ‘other services’ following meetings with the C&I Group, but had not defined ‘other services’ in the new code. She said the SRA ‘might consider’ changing the guidance on section 20 in the future.

Bill Graydon, operations director at the C&I Group, said both parties are ‘making good progress’ in their discussions, but that guidance is needed to determine what ‘other services’ are.