Solicitor Practising Fees Rise Again: What It Means for UK Lawyers

What you will actually pay

The headline figure is the SRA’s portion of the practising certificate fee, rising from £190 to £240. That is not the whole fee.

The annual amount individuals and firms pay covers contributions to several bodies: the SRA, the Law Society, the Legal Services Board, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and the Legal Ombudsman. Only the SRA element is changing by that amount. The Law Society’s portion is rising by around 2%, with the society drawing on reserves to keep the increase down.

Firms pay separately. Individuals contribute 40% of the SRA’s practising fee income, with the remaining 60% charged to firms on a banded scale according to turnover.

Across both bodies, the joint application to the Legal Services Board seeks £224 million in fees for the next practising year, roughly £50 million more than the current year. Compensation fund contributions sit outside that figure and are the subject of a separate application.

The compensation fund, and the split that changed

This is where the largest proportional increases fall, and where the position moved after consultation.

The compensation fund is a discretionary fund operated by the SRA. It compensates people owed money by a regulated firm, provides a safety net for risks professional indemnity insurance cannot cover, and responds where clients have suffered loss through a solicitor’s dishonesty or failure to account.

The SRA originally proposed contributions of £120 for individuals and £3,600 for firms holding client money, up from £70 and £1,950. After consultation raised concerns about the disproportionate impact on smaller firms, it changed the funding split from an even division between individuals and firms to 70% from individuals and 30% from firms.

The result, subject to Legal Services Board approval, is £170 for individuals and £2,170 for firms. In percentage terms that is a 143% increase for individuals and 11% for firms. The SRA is seeking to collect around £46 million for the fund, £20 million more than the current year.

Why the SRA says it needs the money

Two pressures, and they are separable. Enforcement volume drives the core funding requirement. Firm collapses drive the compensation fund.

Rising reports and investigations

Reports of potential misconduct have risen 58% over two years. In the six months to April 2026 the SRA reviewed 8,955 reports, an average of 1,493 a month. Referrals escalating into formal investigation rose 41%, from an average of 156 to 220 a month, and the regulator was handling investigations linked to 1,844 reports at the end of April. We set out that picture in full in our guide to why more solicitors are facing SRA investigations.

Firm collapses and client money

The compensation fund pressure has a more specific cause. Following Axiom Ince, the closure of PM Law Limited produced further substantial claims: the SRA confirmed suspected fraud involving the improper removal and misuse of £39.5 million of client funds, with claims on the fund exceeding £20 million and £9.31 million paid out as at the Law Society’s update.

Interventions have also increased. The SRA carried out 35 in less than six months of the current practising year, against 42 in the whole of 2024-25, and the costs of interventions are recovered from the fund.

Chief executive Sarah Rapson acknowledged the increase would be difficult for the profession, describing it as a decision to invest in the organisation now rather than accept the higher risks and costs of continuing as it had been.

Who actually approves the increase

Not the SRA alone. This is the structural point most coverage omits.

Under the Legal Services Act 2007 the practising certificate fee and the SRA’s funding requirement are considered and approved by the Legal Services Board. The compensation fund contributions go to the LSB in a separate application. The SRA proposes; the oversight regulator decides.

That matters for anyone asking where accountability sits. The consultation is the route for influencing what the SRA asks for. The LSB approval process is the check on whether it gets it.

It is also worth noting the context in which that approval is being sought: the LSB has separately taken enforcement action against the SRA, so the body assessing the funding application has its own live concerns about the regulator’s performance.

How the profession responded

Critically, and from the representative body downwards.

Law Society president Mark Evans described the substantial proposed increase as deeply concerning. The consultation itself surfaced the concern that carried most weight, the disproportionate effect on smaller firms, and the SRA’s revision to the compensation fund split was a direct response to it.

The uncomfortable question the profession has been asking is whether a cost-recovery regulator faces sufficient pressure on efficiency. A practising certificate is mandatory. There is no alternative provider and no competitive market, so a solicitor who considers the fee poor value has no mechanism to act on that view beyond the consultation process and, ultimately, the LSB.

The counter-argument is equally straightforward. The costs are being driven by identifiable events: a 58% rise in reports the regulator did not generate, and two large firm collapses involving client money that the fund exists to address. On that reading the increase is the price of a safety net doing its job.

Both propositions can be true, which is why the LSB approval stage matters more than the rhetoric on either side.

What it means for firms and entrants

For individual solicitors the compensation fund change is the sharper one. A £50 rise in the practising certificate element is noticeable; a £100 rise in the compensation fund contribution on top of it is the larger proportional hit, and it lands on every practising solicitor regardless of whether their firm holds client money.

For firms, the practising fee remains turnover-banded, so the impact scales with size. Organisations employing large numbers of solicitors face cumulative increases running to five figures annually once individual fees, firm fees and compensation fund contributions are aggregated. Against rising professional indemnity premiums and expanding compliance obligations, it compounds.

For entrants the effect is indirect but real. Higher overheads influence hiring and supervision budgets, and firms weighing the cost of training contracts alongside SQE support are making those decisions against a rising fixed cost base. That pressure does not appear on any fee schedule, but it shapes access to the profession.