header-logo header-logo

02 June 2011
Issue: 7468 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

No blanket ban on referral fees

LSB to undertake further review in 2013

The Legal Services Board (LSB) has rejected an outright ban on referral fees.

It consulted last year on its recommendations to strengthen transparency rather than a ban as a means of preventing abuse. It has now fully endorsed this approach, in its document, Referral Fees, Referral Arrangements and Fee Sharing.

However, the eight individual regulators can still opt for a ban as long as they can back it up with evidence and reasons. They must ensure consumers know when and to whom referral fees are to be paid.

The Law Society said it was a “mistaken decision by the LSB, which has failed to act in the public interest”.

However, Seamus Smyth, president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, welcomed the decision: “Robust controls are, however, required and the payment of cash incentives should be banned.”

Tim Oliver, president of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers, said the proposals “raise concerns at the potential for a mish-mash of regulatory decisions on referral fees... The LSB states in its paper that it wants to ensure a ‘consistent regulatory approach to the issue’—it is hard to see how that might be achieved.”

The LSB said it would take into account the extent to which consumer outcomes are served when considering applications by regulators to change their regulatory arrangements. It will also undertake a further review of referral fees in 2013–14.

David Greene, partner at Edwin Coe, said: “Opposition to payments made by solicitors for business is a rare point on which Lord Justice Jackson and the Law Society can agree.

“Jackson saw referral fees reflecting surplus costs in the system but others argue that a ban on referral fees would merely see a shift of cost from referral fees to other methods of generating business.”

Professor Dominic Regan said: “Given that the thrust of this administration is to reduce what Lord Young considered to be `meddlesome intervention’ I see no will to legislate on referral fees. At best we will see guidelines and unenforceable principles laid down.”

Issue: 7468 / Categories: Legal News
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