Nick McDonnell writes about why the Solicitors Act 1974 Costs Regime is no longer fit for purpose
Nick McDonnell writes about the Civil Justice Council’s consultation on reform of the solicitor and own-client costs regime under the Solicitors Act 1974, arguing that the current framework has failed to keep pace with the realities of modern legal practice. He explains why a simpler, unified statutory framework is needed to provide greater clarity, accessibility and procedural proportionality for both solicitors and clients.
Nick’s article was published on 3 July 2026 and can be found here.
Why the Solicitors Act 1974 Costs Regime is No Longer Fit for Purpose
The Civil Justice Council’s consultation on reform of the solicitor and own-client costs regime under the Solicitors Act 1974 presents a rare opportunity to modernise an area of law that has remained largely unchanged for more than fifty years. As time goes on, it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that the current framework remains fit for purpose in a modern legal market.
The Solicitors Act was drafted for a very different profession, and today’s legal landscape bears little resemblance to that of 1974. Fixed recoverable costs, conditional fee agreements, DBAs, litigation funding, legal technology and alternative business structures have fundamentally changed how legal services are delivered and charged.
The legislative framework has failed to keep pace with these changes. The distinction between contentious and non-contentious business (and their respective agreements), once a logical dividing line, now often produces unnecessary complexity and uncertainty, as illustrated in the Court of Appeal case of Broadfield Law UK LLP v Barnes. Determining the applicable regime can distract from the substantive dispute itself.
The legislation also creates procedural inefficiencies. Outdated provisions that sit uneasily alongside the Civil Procedure Rules generate satellite litigation, increase costs and delay resolution. A system designed to protect clients should not itself become a source of disproportionate expense.
The Law Society’s response to the consultation rightly supports a simpler framework, but it leaves several important reforms unaddressed, including a streamlined assessment procedure, fixed or capped assessment costs, standardised solicitors’ bills and clearer rules governing modern funding arrangements. Reform presents an opportunity to create a coherent and unified framework. Any new regime should prioritise clarity, accessibility and proportionality while reflecting modern legal practice and simplifying the assessment process. Removing the distinction between contentious and non-contentious business would reduce unnecessary jurisdictional arguments while improving certainty for both solicitors and clients.
Modernisation need not come at the expense of consumer protection. Robust safeguards against excessive charging remain essential. However, those protections can be achieved through legislation that is simpler, more transparent and easier to apply than the current statutory framework. The CJC’s review represents a rare opportunity to undertake meaningful reform rather than piecemeal amendment. If the objective is to ensure that the regulation of solicitor and own-client costs remains effective for the next generation of legal practice, incremental change is unlikely to be enough. What is required is a modern statutory code that reflects how legal services are actually delivered in 2026, not how they were delivered in 1974.
