Law Society Warns of Backlog Worsening

So Weber • June 30, 2026 • 2 min read

Law Society warns of worsening backlog in civil justice system with proposed changes to solicitor-client costs disputes.

Law Society Warns of Backlog Worsening - law society — Law Society Warns of Backlog Worsening

1. Purpose of the Consultation

Background: The Law Society has warned that Civil Justice Council proposals to divert lower-value solicitor-client costs disputes from court to the Legal Ombudsman could overload a complaints system already facing record demand.

Proposed Change: The warning forms part of the Society’s response to the CJC consultation on reforming Part III of the Solicitors Act 1974, the statutory framework governing solicitor-client costs challenges in England and Wales.

2. Key Proposals

Centralized Complaints Handling: The consultation, chaired by Mr Justice Adam Johnson, asks whether modest disputes over legal bills should move away from court assessment and into the Legal Ombudsman scheme, with larger matters subject to mandatory alternative dispute resolution before litigation.

Expanded Scope: It also proposes an objective test that solicitors’ charges should be fair and reasonable, while removing the long-standing distinction between contentious and non-contentious business.

Client-Centric Reforms: For solicitors and firm leaders, the issue is not only where disputes are heard but how billing risk is documented from the first client-care letter.

3. Rationale for Change

Inconsistency in Current System: The CJC paper links reform to uncertainty created by the current regime, including arguments over informed consent, the form of statutory bills and the interaction between professional conduct rules and costs assessment.

4. Implications for Law Firms

Compliance Requirements: That means retainers, costs updates, damages-based agreements, conditional fee agreements

Complaint Handling Procedures: Firms may need to adapt internal processes to align with the LeO’s expectations, such as:

– Providing detailed cost breakdowns. – Ensuring prompt responses to complaints. – Maintaining evidence of compliance with professional standards.

Reputation Management: The LeO’s role in publishing public reports on complaints could impact firm reputation, emphasizing the need for proactive compliance and client satisfaction.

5. Key Stakeholders Involved

Legal Profession Regulators: Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Bar Standards Board (BSB), and Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX).

Law Firms: Expected to adapt to the new system and ensure compliance with the LeO’s standards.

6. Next Steps

Consultation Period: Responses to the consultation are due by [insert date].

Potential Impact: If implemented, the LeO would become a centralized, independent body for resolving legal service disputes, with a focus on client protection and professional accountability.