It is only right to
observe that – so far – we have not had a problem with the software this
year. Antony Townsend and his staff
appear to have done what they set out to do.
One hopes it is part
of a broad improvement. I would have
dealt with the renewal earlier but it is only quite recently that the regulator
has understood that I am only running one business.
For most of 2012 I
have laboured with the apparent belief that though I had secured recognition of
my limited company as an authorised body and notified transfer of existing
business to the new entity, I still wanted to operate as an unincorporated sole
practitioner too…
I have had my
nominations of myself as Compliance Officer for Legal Practice (“COLP”) and
Compliance Officer of Finance and Administration (“COFA”) confirmed for the
corporate entity. We will see whether I
am taken to task, as threatened, for not donning the same hats in a former
business.
So it all looks a
lot more cheerful ... except, that is, for the fees.
Mine have increased
50% this year and very little of that has anything to do with turnover.
For those who don’t
know, the fees payable by solicitors, specifically, to their regulator have
four components.
Individually we pay
a practising certificate fee which is the same across the board and an
organisation levy based on a sliding scale according to turnover. We would always like it to be lower but these
are not what stick in the throat.
This year I am
paying the thick end of £1,500 by way of “contribution to the Compensation Fund”. Again there is a personal levy which is £92
in all cases but then there is the organisation levy…
As I understand the
fee structure for this year, that is £1,340 regardless of size. So, as the sole director of a small
incorporated practice – albeit with a growing number of other personnel – I
will pay exactly the same contribution as a national firm with tens or even
hundreds of partners.
How is that right?
Well, some point to
a prejudice – sorry perception – that
sole practitioners are the scourge of the industry because, obviously, we do
exactly what we want and miss no opportunity to indulge in heinous activity
that will require the profession as a whole to compensate somebody.
This yardstick is
presumably applied regardless of whether one has policies, procedures and
systems meeting and exceeding the Law Society’s Quality Management Standard.
It doesn’t matter
that you have never had a negligence claim (touch wood) or that there has only
been one virtually insignificant complaint in 3 years of busy practice.
Nor does it matter
that big firms greedy for turnover and looking to improve tight margins
compromise on service and expose the profession to further risk. In many cases,
though the same firms have paid thousands upon thousands of pounds in referral
fees to insurers with one consequence of fuelling the current argument for
reductions of fixed fees in “low value” road traffic and other injury
claims.
They have helped
give credence to liability insurers’ lie that the fixed costs were calculated
to include an allowance for referral fees and now those are to be banned, then
the costs should be reduced.
I have never paid referral
fees and I don’t spend the equivalent of £500 and more per case in marketing to
generate the business we do.
Again not wishing to
tempt fate, we gain business by not screwing up what we do in the first place
and gaining repeat business and referrals from happy clients.
You might be
forgiven for thinking that we take a pride in our service delivery, don’t plan
to compromise on quality and aim to maintain those standards despite the
government’s relentless assault on funding.
I expect
there is a fair chance that the cowboys will ride out of town when they can no
longer make a quick buck. It wouldn’t surprise
me that firms like mine then get stung with yet more levy.
Meanwhile, having
paid through the nose for this year’s renewal one way or another, I will be
doing a big part of the SRA’s job for them with effect from 1 January. Every time there is even a minor occurrence
that is not strictly in accordance with the rules – even though it may not be
within our immediate control – I will have to put on one or both of my COLP and COFA hats and
decide whether I report myself and then wait…for what?
This is regulation. David Cameron doesn’t want onerous regulation for the
media because it is important to have a free press.
What about the legal
system, Prime Minister? Do you not think
that is something we should also try to retain?
No comments:
Post a Comment