Corporate counsel demand cut in PC fee for company lawyers
Corporate counsel hit out at the costs of practising certificate as resentment over Law Society's record of representing in-house simmers. Michelle Madsen reports on the results of the latest The Verdict survey
April 25, 2007 at 08:09 PM
4 minute read
Corporate counsel hit out at the costs of practising certificate as resentment over Law Society's record of representing in-house simmers. Michelle Madsen reports on the results of the latest The Verdict survey
Resentment among corporate counsel over the practising certificate (PC) fee remains as high as ever, according to new research, with 81% of in-house lawyers unhappy to bear the full cost of the levy.
This month's Legal Week The Verdict survey, conducted in association with Davies Arnold Cooper, shows that a majority of corporate counsel feel there should be a sharp discount for in-house lawyers.
The survey found that only 19% of respondents believe corporate counsel should bear the full cost of the PC, which currently stands at £950 a year.
Dawood Pervez, general counsel at wholesaler Bestway and Commerce & Industry (C&I) Group representative to the Law Society, told Legal Week: "The practising certificate does give a certain cohesion and works as a badge for the profession. However, its role as a tool to maintain standards becomes scarcely relevant in the context of in-house lawyers, who are subject to the disciplinary rules of their company."
However, the majority of respondents (67%) felt that if in-house lawyers are to work on reserved areas of legal activity such as conveyancing, litigation or probate, it is important for them to hold a PC. A further 19% agreed that it was a necessary tool and only 14% said they felt it was 'unimportant'.
Andrew Barling, corporate counsel at tech company Arm, said: "It is a bit like a poll tax – you are forced to continue paying for the right to call yourself a solicitor when you have already spent many years and a lot of money qualifying for the right to do that.
"The Law Society also seems to think it only needs to service the needs of high street solicitors and ignore colleagues in industry. In effect, you – or your employer – are forced to pay for representation you do not want and do not, in practice, get."
General counsel of logistics company Kewill Systems Richard Allen agreed, saying: "The PC should be held by all practising solicitors, including those who are in-house, but asking them to pay the full fee is utterly unreasonable. I get virtually no benefit from the Law Society and do not see why I or my employer should have to pay for the transgressions of small private practice practitioners."
In-house counsel largely agree that they do not get a fair benefit from paying the PC, with only 26% saying they felt in-house lawyers should pay 100% of the full fee if they are involved in reserved practices. The majority of respondents (56%) felt that less than 60% should be paid and 15% felt that they should pay only up to 20% of the full fee.
Helen Mahy, general counsel at National Grid and chair of FTSE 100 representative body the GC100, said the issue was a concern to members.
She commented: "In-house lawyers should pay a discounted rate, but they have to pay something. If the profession is to be regulated, there will be a cost."
The question as to whether in-house lawyers should foot such a large chunk of the bill for the cost of regulating the rest of the profession remains contentious, with just a third (33%) of respondents agreeing that the fee that they pay should contribute towards the complaints and regulation mechanism. The same number felt that all lawyers should have a part of their PC fee put towards law reform work.
Despite the obvious dissatisfaction felt by the in-house community towards the benefits they reap from the PC, the Law Society in recent years has continued to press in-house lawyers to pay the levy.
At the end of March the society launched a campaign to amend the Solicitors Act to end the current exemption on Government lawyers paying the full fee. The proposed reform, which has been rejected by the Government, would have added an estimated £1.2m to Chancery Lane's revenues.
Office of Fair Trading general counsel Brian McHenry argued that the exemption was justified.
He said: "The Government is rightly resisting a change in the law. This would be an additional burden on the taxpayer as all Government solicitors have these fees paid for by their office."
Whether the Law Society succeeds in its effort or not, in-house lawyers do not want to pay the full price for a PC, which the vast majority believe is not being tailored to their needs.
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 AllGCs Responsible for Gender Balanced Boardrooms Under New EU Rules
A Dark Future of Deepfakes and Disobedient AI: What GCs Foresee For 2050
3 minute readShein GC's Responses to Supply Chain Questions 'Bordered on Contempt', Say Lawmakers
Trending Stories
- 1'Merciless' Filing Deadline Dooms Cuban Americans' Property-Trafficking Suit Against BNP Paribas, SocGen
- 2In 2-1 Ruling, Court Clears Way for Decade-Old Wrongful Imprisonment Suit
- 3Trump Sentencing, TikTok Ban Welcome Justices Back to Work
- 4U.S. Eleventh Circuit Remands Helms-Burton Trafficking Case Involving Confiscated Cuban Port
- 5Can Passive Technology Change the Impaired Driving Trajectory?
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