ACSeS and SLG call for further cuts in PC fee
The two main representative groups for local government lawyers have called on the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to go much further in shifting the burden of the costs of regulation onto private practice firms than is currently proposed.
As part of its Moving to a fairer fee policy consultation, the SRA has suggested that a 40/60 split of the practising certificate fee between individuals and firms was the best way forward.
In its submission, the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors (ACSeS) said local government lawyers have had an exceptionally poor deal for far too long.
ACSeS described the proposed 40/60 split as “a useful starting point”, but suggested it was “arbitrary and devoid of any evidential base.” The Association called on the SRA to justify its proposed figure – in the absence of such justification, the split should rise to 20/80, it said.
ACSeS added that it was surprising that neither the SRA nor the Law Society had accurate data in terms of the regulatory impact on local government solicitors to justify the cost of practising certificates or the number and amount of sanctions actually imposed on solicitors employed in local government who might have been found to have breached the regulations. “We suspect that the figures will be quite small,” it suggested.
The Solicitors in Local Government group (SLG) meanwhile said it “reluctantly”” backed the proposed 40/60 split, but “only for 2010 and as a starting point for shifting the burden away from individuals and on to firms”.
The group similarly called for further reductions towards a 20/80 split in the medium term, “which we believe is a more accurate reflection of the regulatory burden”. The SLG submission added: “The in-house sector has for too long carried an unfair burden for the cost of regulation through the PC fee.”
Both ACSeS and the SLG highlighted the severe pressure upon public expenditure that is expected over the lifetime of the next Parliament.
“Whilst many of our private sector colleagues may soon move out of recession, it is clear that the public sector will not do so on the same timescales,” the two groups’ submissions said. Therefore, any assessment of affordability must properly evaluate the impact upon the difficult financial position of local authorities, they added.
The ACSeS submission said the “best and easiest” solution was for the SRA to apply the exemption rates currently paid by the Government Legal Service and the Crown Prosecution Service to local government solicitors with immediate effect. Such a solution was just and equitable, “although we recognise that this will not be a popular option for the private law firms and the wider legal profession, as they have been feather bedded for far too long by the public purse”
The SLG in turn demanded that the CPS should not benefit from any reduction that was not made available to local government lawyers.
As for the Compensation Fund, both organisations reiterated their opposition to local government solicitors having to make contributions, arguing that they do not hold client monies. This was therefore a firm-based regulation issue, they added.
ACSeS called on the SRA to “act now and not leave this matter just because there might be a backlash from private law firms.”
Dr Mirza Ahmad, President of ACSeS, said: “Taking a conservative average of £10,000 paid by each local authority per annum over the last decade, it is estimated that about £50m of public funds were paid into the legal profession by local authorities, with little or no value (or return) for local government. In the case of the larger authorities, such as Birmingham City Council, their share, alone, would amount to over £1m during the last decade.
“This is a disproportionate level of public subsidy into the legal profession and the regulatory body. Such amounts cannot be justified in the public interest and such a position is not sustainable in the current economic climate facing public sector employers.”