Response to the Civil Justice Council Consultation on Reform of the Solicitors Act 1974, Part III (and linked proposals in the Legal Ombudsman’s June 2026 consultation on Scheme Rules, Case Fees and Publishing Decisions)
Date of submission: 15 July 2026
The Solicitors Sole Practitioners Group (SPG) represents sole practitioner solicitors across England and Wales. We provide professional and pastoral support to our members, many of whom operate small practices with limited administrative and financial resources.
We have carefully reviewed the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) consultation paper on reform of the Solicitors Act 1974 Part III (April–July 2026) and the Legal Ombudsman’s June 2026 consultation on changes to Scheme Rules, case fees, and publishing decisions part of which is highly relevant to this consultation.
Our Position
We strongly disagree with the proposal to divert solicitor-client costs disputes, where the amount in dispute is £50,000 or less, to the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) for determination, with no automatic right of appeal to the court. This would effectively remove court oversight from the vast majority of billing disputes.
This proposal is fundamentally unfair, disproportionate, and damaging to the profession, particularly to sole practitioners solicitors.
Key Reasons for Our Strong Opposition
Unfairness and complete lack of cost risk to the client
Under the proposed regime, a client can pursue an unmeritorious or speculative costs complaint through LeO with no financial risk whatsoever. LeO services are free to complainants. There are no adverse costs orders, no requirement to pay the solicitor’s costs if the complaint fails, and no meaningful deterrent against weak or abusive claims.
In contrast, the solicitor (respondent) faces significant and escalating case fees even if they are wholly successful and the complaint is dismissed or resolved in their favour. This creates a one-sided system that incentivises clients to challenge bills without consequence while penalising solicitors who must defend themselves.
Proposed LeO case fees are excessively high and disproportionate — especially for small bills (£1,000–£5,000)
The LeO consultation proposes a tiered case fee structure (replacing the current flat £400):
Early resolution: £200
Investigation (no final decision): £750
Ombudsman final decision: £1,500
Plus an additional £400 if the solicitor does not provide a final written response within 8 weeks (potentially bringing the total to £1,900).
These fees apply even where the solicitor is entirely innocent and the complaint is dismissed, provided the Ombudsman is not satisfied that “all reasonable steps” were taken at first tier.
For a disputed bill of only £1,000–£5,000, a fee of £750–£1,900 is grossly disproportionate. It can exceed or consume a large portion of the bill itself. Sole practitioners, who often deal with modest-value matters, would face a punitive financial burden simply for defending their fees. This is not “fair cost distribution”, it is in effect a tax on the profession for the privilege of being complained about.
LeO is not the appropriate forum for costs disputes
Costs assessment requires specialist knowledge of costs law, proportionality, reasonableness, and the specific rules under the Solicitors Act and CPR. LeO’s current performance, long delays, significant backlogs, and limited expertise in complex costs matters, makes it wholly unsuitable to take over this jurisdiction. Expanding its role to virtually all solicitor-client billing disputes up to £50,000 would create unacceptable delays, injustice, and a flood of cases that LeO is not resourced or equipped to handle properly.
The proposal removes the safeguard of court oversight.
Suggested Alternative Approach
We remain open to sensible reform of Part III to modernise billing formalities, clarify the “fair and reasonable” test, and streamline processes.
However, costs disputes should remain primarily within the court system, where there are proper safeguards, costs rules, and specialist expertise.
We strongly recommend that solicitor-client costs disputes under the Solicitors Act should be dealt with by way of provisional assessment, or an enhanced, streamlined version of it, under the Civil Procedure Rules, rather than being transferred to the Legal Ombudsman.
This court-based route would deliver clear benefits to clients as well as solicitors:
Fixed and predictable costs for the assessment process itself, giving clients certainty about their maximum exposure.
- Significantly faster resolution — provisional assessment is typically dealt with on the papers within weeks, in contrast to LeO’s well-documented delays and backlogs which can run for many months.
- Access to specialist costs expertise within a structured judicial framework that retains the safeguard of court oversight.
This could include:
A simplified paper-based provisional assessment process for bills under a certain threshold (e.g. £5,000–£10,000 disputed amount).
- Optional early neutral evaluation or panel review by experienced costs practitioners before full assessment.
- Retention of the court’s costs jurisdiction with appropriate costs-shifting rules to deter unmeritorious claims.
Such a court-based n approach would be far more proportionate, fair, and efficient for all parties than routing everything through LeO.
Responses to Specific Consultation Questions
Question 1 (Objectives of any revised code – para 4.2)
We agree that any revised statutory code should pursue the objectives of clarity, fairness, proportionality, and protection of clients while recognising the legitimate interests of solicitors. However, these objectives are best achieved by retaining court oversight of costs disputes rather than transferring them to the Legal Ombudsman.
Question 2 (Overarching principle that charges be ‘fair and reasonable’)
We support the introduction of a clear overarching ‘fair and reasonable’ principle, provided it is accompanied by practical guidance on factors such as transparency at the outset, proper client care, and the right to a proportionate and low-cost assessment process when disputes arise.
Question 3 / Related questions on billing formalities
We support modernisation and simplification of billing requirements, including clearer rules on estimates, staged billing, and the content of client care letters. However, any new regime must not increase the regulatory burden on sole practitioners.
We endorse the retention (and enhancement) of court-based assessment mechanisms, particularly provisional assessment, as the fairest and most efficient way of resolving disputes.
Q4 – Removal of the distinction between contentious and non-contentious business
We have no strong objection in principle to removing the outdated distinction, provided a single modern framework retains proper court oversight for costs disputes.
Q5 & Q7 – Graduated dispute resolution route for smaller bills and expanded LeO jurisdiction
We strongly disagree with the proposal (see our main position above). Routing smaller, and most, costs disputes through LeO before any court access is unfair, disproportionate, and will lead to unacceptable delays. We recommend instead an enhanced provisional assessment process in the courts.
Q6 – Graduated escalation / ADR for larger bills
We support sensible pre-action ADR and early neutral evaluation in appropriate cases, but this should operate within the court system rather than as a barrier to judicial determination.
Q8 – £50,000 LeO cap
The proposed cap is too high. Most solicitor-client disputes fall well below this figure and should remain in the court system via provisional assessment.
Q9 & Q10 – Abolition of the ‘statute bill’ concept and modernisation of content, signature and delivery
We support modernisation and simplification of billing requirements through updated conduct rules and court rules. This should reduce unnecessary formality while maintaining client protection and clarity.
Single one-year time limit
We agree with a simplified single time limit, one year from receipt, subject to the court’s discretion to extend where fair and reasonable. This strikes a better balance than the current complex rules.
Q12–13 – Other miscellaneous provisions
We support removing outdated or overly formalistic provisions where they can safely be replaced by conduct rules or CPR provisions.
Q14 – Implementation via limited primary legislation and rules
We agree this is a sensible approach, provided the core safeguard of court-based assessment for costs disputes is preserved.
Q15 – Extending ‘fair and reasonable’ to other legal services professionals
We take no position on this as a sole practitioners’ group focused on solicitors.
Impact on Sole Practitioners
Sole practitioners are disproportionately affected by these proposals. We already operate with tight margins, high regulatory burdens, and limited back-office support. Additional case fees of hundreds or thousands of pounds per complaint, even when successfully dismissed, combined with the removal of court safeguards, would make it uneconomic to handle many lower-value matters and would further discourage sole practitioners from remaining in the regulated sector.
Conclusion and Request
The SPG strongly opposes the transfer of solicitor-client costs disputes (up to £50,000) to the Legal Ombudsman. The combination of zero cost risk for complainants and high, escalating case fees for solicitors is manifestly unfair. The proposed fees are particularly punitive for smaller bills. LeO is not the right body for this work.
We urge the Civil Justice Council to reject this element of the proposals and instead develop a court-based or expert-panel solution centred on provisional assessment or equivalent streamlined processes. We also call on the Legal Ombudsman / Office for Legal Complaints to reconsider the scale and structure of the proposed case fee increases.
We are happy to provide further evidence, attend meetings, or expand on any of these points.