The Law Society published its response to the Civil Justice Council’s consultation on reforms to Part III of the Solicitors Act 1974 on their website : Reform of the Solicitors Act 1974, Part III | The Law Society). We have deliberately published this nearly 3 weeks before the deadline so that our members can use our response to inform their own.

Law Society Response to the Reforms to the CJC Part III of the Solicitors Act 1974 Consultation

The consultation looks at the way solicitors bill their clients and how disputes relating to costs could be dealt with in the future. Any changes to Part III of the Solicitors Act 1974 will impact most solicitors in private practice and so we are encouraging our members to submit their own response before the deadline on 16 July 2026.

Law Society Response

Overall, we are in favour of reforms to Part III, but we have raised a number of concerns about the CJC proposals within our response. These include:

  • Reforms must be proportionate and based on evidence, including statistical data.
  • Proposals to divert more cases to the Legal Ombudsman are of some concern. Our concerns about this are set out in detail within our response.
  • Solicitors must be paid for at least some of their work whilst costs complaints are ongoing.
  • Costs assessments must be accessible but there should be safeguards in place to avoid a flood of costs complaints without merit.
  • Changes to Part III must keep pace with changes in the way solicitors are practicing, for example increased use of technology.

What can you do?

  • You can find the consultation paper and information about how to submit a response on the CJC’s website here: Solicitors Act – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
  • We would be grateful if you could circulate this information to your members and encourage them to submit their own response.

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the Author: hlsadmin

Quick Links

Recent Posts

  • Seeking views on govt proposal to divert funds from interest on lawyers’ client accounts to the MoJ budget

  • Mazur and the conduct of litigation