header-logo header-logo

12 January 2026
Issue: 8145 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Legal services , Costs
printer mail-detail

Client account interest money-maker provokes concerns

Ministers’ proposals to raise funds by seizing interest on lawyers’ client account schemes could ‘cause firms to close’, solicitors have warned

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) consultation, 'Interest on lawyers’ client accounts scheme', published this week, proposes that law firms keep a portion of the interest while another portion is remitted to the government. The government would take 75% of interest on pooled accounts and 50% of interest on individual accounts, which tend to be used for longer-term work such as probate and cost more to administer.

Justice secretary David Lammy said: ‘We believe that unearned income could be better invested in strengthening our justice system.

‘This is a tried and tested idea, with similar schemes operating successfully for decades in countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, and France. These models have delivered measurable impact by funding access to justice and legal aid services.’

However, Law Society president Mark Evans said: ‘Firms will close, fees will rise and clients will be impacted if the MoJ goes ahead with the proposal.

‘The cost of doing business in the legal sector is already high, with recent rises to national insurance contributions meaning businesses are paying more. The proposal comes at a time when small firms will have to manage new regulatory burdens on anti-money laundering supervision and tax adviser registration. High street law firms will face a perfect storm of new bureaucracy.’

Currently, different rules apply across the legal profession. Solicitors must return a ‘fair sum’ of interest to the client, CILEX lawyers must return ‘the proper proportion’ of interest, licensed conveyancers and probate practitioners must return interest unless the client has given written consent to another arrangement, while barristers are generally prohibited from holding or managing client money.

Victoria Morrison-Hughes, vice-chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers, said: ‘Costs lawyers may sometimes have to hold client money simply to ensure that funds are available for payment of both disbursements and their own fees.

‘This is not a money-making exercise—simply a way to ensure that work is done smoothly and efficiently. The MoJ must ensure the new scheme does not disadvantage the firms that do this.’

The consultation closes on 9 February.

Issue: 8145 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Legal services , Costs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll