The Gazette 1967/71

cent in conveyancing scale charges on trans actions from £4,000 to £20,000. (v) That conveyancing scale charges should be abolished for transactions over £20,000, the charges in respect of such transactions being under Schedule II instead. (vi) That lessees' solicitors' scale charges should be equated with lessors' solicitors' scale charges. (vii) That a solicitor acting for both vendor and purchaser should, so long as the practice of acting for both parties is allowed, be entitled to charge not more than one-and-a-half times the scale charge for acting for one party. (viii) Solicitors' scale charges for conveyancing, should normally be treated as maxima leav ing a solicitor free "to go below the scale if he so wishes"—freedom which the Board state "is now largely denied him under the rules of local law societies". Solicitors who have not already done so, should read the report itself (the text is only twenty-eight pages long); they will, furthermore, find its illum inating statistical supplement, which takes up an additional thirty-six pages, a fascinating study. The object of this article is to put the Board's report in perspective, to point out certain aspects of it which may well be the subject of criticism by the Council (who are at present considering what representations to make) and to report such action as the Council have already taken. The Report in Perspective It would have been difficult to envisage a more misleading headline than the one which appeared in a popular newspaper on the day after the report was issued : "Dismissed—Solicitors' Case on Fees". The fact of the matter was that the Law Society's claim that there should be increased remuneration for three sectors of solicitors' work had been found by the Board to be justified even though the Board did not accept the full amount of the claim in each case. The findings were, in other words, at least a partial victory for the Law Society— though this could well prove to be but a Pyrrhic victory if the reductions in charges for certain other sectors of solicitors' work which the Board have suggested are brought into force and under cutting scale charges are encouraged. Solicitors' earnings were referred by the govern ment to the Board because the Council had sought increases in solicitors' charges for county court work and for acting on the grant of leases; and after the government had decided to refer the

matter to the Board the Council also added a claim for an increase in the lower reaches of the conveyancing scale. The Board recommended some increases in respect of each of these heads— though considerably less than what the Council were seeking for leases and for county court work. It is important to remember that the report has of itself no binding authority and it is open to the government to accept it in whole or in part—and equally open to them to reject it. Furthermore, when referring solicitors' remuneration to the Board, the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and the Lord Chancellor specifically treated the Board's investigation as a preliminary step "before the Law Society's detailed proposals for increases in charges are considered by the Statutory Com mittees"—i.e. by the committee set up under Sec tion 56 of the Solicitors Act, 1957, in respect of conveyancing costs and by the County Court Rules Committee in respect of county court costs. The current position is that the Lord Chancellor has stated orally that he does not propose to call a meeting of either of these committees to deal with the Law Society's claims (or with the recommen dations of the Prices and Incomes Board) until the government have decided whether, and if so to what extent, they will adopt the Board's report. He has in the meantime invited the Council to submit to him such representations regarding the report as they may think fit, so that these may be taken into account by the government in arriving at their decision. Whatever may happen as a result of the specific suggestions made by the Board for present changes in solicitors' charges, it should be noted that the final paragraph of the report raises a far reaching and long term question. Is the profession to be more-or-less permanently subject to periodical re views of their remuneration (perhaps every two years) by the Prices and Incomes Board? The Board suggest that the government should make a standing reference to them under Section 3 of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966, under which the Board may be instructed "to keep under continuous review any question concerning all or any of the incomes or prices or charges or other matters" to which that Section applies. They have since then given an indication of what this would amount to in practice. The Board say that in their view the main need in the foreseeable future is information on the movement of gross and net earnings and they suggest that this might be provided by solici tors without great trouble, if notice were given to them in advance and the information provided when they next prepared their annual accounts. If 17