298 / 736
the supply of new entrants to the profession needs
to be increased; there are thought to be still about
3,500 fewer solicitors than there ought to be. As
to the second premise this, of course, depends
partly on. the report of the Royal Commission on
Doctors and Dentists Remuneration having cor
rectly shown the level of solicitors' incomes and
those of other professions in 1956. What the Royal
Commission did was to send a questionnaire to a
random sample of approximately 1,800 solicitors
and they received completed questionnaires from
just over 1,000, a response rate of almost fifty-nine
per cent. It is not known what the particular
reasons may have been for the remaining forty-one
per cent having failed to reply to the questionnaire,
so it cannot therefore, be assumed that the statistics
relating to the incomes of solicitors quoted in the
Pilkington Report were necessarily representative
of the profession as a whole.
Nor is it much comfort to a great many solicitors
to know that if their incomes were "average" they
would be receiving £4,870 per annum. The Board's
statistics show that in 1966 approximately forty
per cent of all solicitors who derive their incomes
from private practice (whether as sole principals,
partners or assistant solicitors), earned less than
£2,640 before payment of tax (see Tables 4, 10
AND 12a). It must furthermore be remembered
that such solicitors have, out of their earnings, to
make provision for their own pensions (subject to
limited tax relief) and that many of them also
have to contribute out of their earnings to the
working capital required by their firms.
Having concluded that solicitors'
incomes
in
1966 were "just about right", the PIB have calcu
lated that the increase they recommend in county
court charges would result in an additional in
come to solicitors of about £2.4 million, that the
increase in lessees' solicitors' charges would result
in an additional £0.9 million and that the increase
in charges for the sale and purchase of properties
up to £2,000 would result in an additional £0.8
million—a total increase of £4.1 million. The
Board then argue that there must be a correspond
ing reduction by £4.1 million in respect of certain
other work and they suggest that because "this
amounts to a reduction of about six per cent of
scale fees from properties worth over £4,000" the
whole of it should be offset in this way. It appears,
in other words, that the figure of six per cent has
been arrived at solely by the desire to offset the
£4.1 million increase by an exactly corresponding
decrease. No case has been made out for this re
duction on its merits and the regressive nature of
conveyancing scales has not been taken properly
into account.
In deciding to suggest this counter-balancing
reduction in certain conveyancing charges of £4.1
million, the Board have furthermore failed to take
into account the effect of Selective Employment
Tax on the profession. This is a curious omission
because in paragraph seventy-six of their report
they recognise that the statistics in their report
"largely relate to the period before this tax was
in full operation" and they estimate "that in a full
year it might amount to more than £3 million
over and above what we have included in our
figures". As the profession has already by now
been hit for a full year by this additional £3
million, it ought surely to be taken into account in
any balancing of pluses and minuses; and if taken
into account it would in itself go three-quarters of
the way to offset the £4.1 million increased charges
recommended by the Board.
The Board themselves recognise that solicitors'
overhead expenses may well be increasing more
rapidly than their incomes. Table 8 in the statis
tical appendix shows, indeed, that the total ex
penses of solicitors' practices increased more rapidly
between 1964 and 1966 than did their gross tak
ings, total expenses being shown in that table as
having increased by nineteen per cent whereas
gross takings increased by only twelve per cent. It
is probable that this trend has continued and this
accordingly should also be taken into account in
any endeavour to balance the £4.1 million addi
tional charges for certain types of business.
The Board suggest that solicitors should be en
titled to reduce their charges for conveyancing
below the authorised scale and say that "the re
strictions which at present operate to prevent a
solicitor from reducing charges below this stan
dard, should be abandoned altogether". This sug
gestion ignores the fact that the scales of chrages
have beeen fixed on the basis that they are the
appropriate charges to make and that they are not
merely
intended
as maxima. The arguments
against resale price maintenance in respect of
commodities do not, however, apply to the provi
sion of a professional service. The purchaser of
goods (especially if they are branded goods) knows
that he is receiving the same article whether he
buys it at a cut-price shop or at a more expensive
one. The client, however, is usually unable to
judge the professional service which he is given
by his solicitor in a conveyancing transaction as
he has not the necessary technical knowledge. It
would not be in the public interest to encourage
competition by solicitors who might be prepared
19