Government rejects call for all in-house lawyers to pay PC fee
The Government has rebuffed an attempt to force all in-house lawyers to pay for a practising certificate (PC). In a debate in the House of Lords earlier this month, Conservative shadow Lord Chancellor Lord Kingsland proposed an amendment to the Legal Services Bill, which was backed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), in a bid to "put the obligation of in-house solicitors beyond doubt".
March 22, 2007 at 12:49 AM
2 minute read
The Government has rebuffed an attempt to force all in-house lawyers to pay for a practising certificate (PC).
In a debate in the House of Lords earlier this month, Conservative shadow Lord Chancellor Lord Kingsland proposed an amendment to the Legal Services Bill, which was backed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), in a bid to "put the obligation of in-house solicitors beyond doubt".
However, the Government refused to draft in new blanket regulation that would cover all solicitors employed in commerce, industry, local government and those providing any kind of legal services.
Speaking during the debate, Baroness Ashton, a minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, said: "Provided no reserved legal activity is involved, I do not see why we should treat persons who may have once qualified as a lawyer any differently from any other person who may provide general advice to their employer."
Under the present system, in-house lawyers are not required to hold a valid PC provided they do not dip into areas of reserved legal activity, such as conveyancing, probate and litigation.
They are also not required to make any payment to the Solicitors Compensation Fund, in line with the Solicitors Act.
The Law Society's regulatory arm has been pushing to require all in-house lawyers to carry a PC for a number of years.
In a statement, an SRA spokesperson said: "We wish to ensure as far as possible that all solicitors contribute proportionally to the cost of regulation. This remains a long-term aim."
Shell M&A general counsel Richard Wiseman (above) told Legal Week: "My reading of [the Legal Services Bill] is that the terms of reserved work could be expanded so that it might incorporate the work of in-house lawyers. In this way, the changes could still come in, through the back door."
Talkback: Why should in-house lawyers get special treatment? Click here to have your say.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
GCs Responsible for Gender Balanced Boardrooms Under New EU Rules
A Dark Future of Deepfakes and Disobedient AI: What GCs Foresee For 2050
3 minute read
Shein GC's Responses to Supply Chain Questions 'Bordered on Contempt', Say Lawmakers
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
