A spanner in the works: Solicitor Agent, Non-Solicitor Agent and the Solicitor Principal

Learning is a continuous process that goes beyond practical knowledge. Continuing Professional Development plays a vital role in this regard. Non-practical knowledge can often overflow into practical knowledge, even without us realising it. I often explain to people that my law firm is a one-person entity and that I receive instructions in the capacity of a Solicitor’s Agent. However, many people are not aware of this because it’s not the norm and it’s impossible for us humans to know everything. We learn by being exposed to different events and circumstances.

I came home last Friday to find a 3rd edition of Friston on Cost had arrived (which I acquired off ebay from UK Law Books Limited, I strongly recommend those looking for a previous edition for a discount rate do so by looking at their eBay page). I kid you not, it is thicker than volume 1 of the White Book (and bright purple) and I just happened to open it at Chapter 22 – Agency and Costs. I thought I knew about the the history of Solicitors Agens but, my goodness, there’s more.

Further history

In previous a post, I explained how I found an article (which I can no longer locate) which talked about the history of Solicitors’ rights of audience and s60(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 stated that “in any proceedings in the County Court any of the following persons may address the court…. any Solicitors engaged as an agent by a Solicitor on the record, any solicitor employer by a Solicitor so engaged“.

The article suggested that the past legislation did not establish an agency for a Solicitor to represent a client on behalf of another Solicitor. However, I realised that there may not have been a legal right granted by the statute, but there could have been a right established by common law.

In Friston on Costs, it refers to the authorities that a Solicitor, who is instructed by a client, will, in general, have the authority to instruct a Solicitor Agent. The authorities go back as far as 1823. The concept of Solicitor Agents goes back much further than I believed to be the case.

A quote from a case called Re Pomeroy & Tanner [1897] 1 CH 284 discusses whether an agent’s fee is a profit cost or a disbursement. Stirling J said:-

It is not the 20th century invention that I believe it to be.

Non-solicitor agents?

Of course the discussion is the cost in respect of agency Solcitiors as above. So Friston doesn’t address the topic in the manner that I am considering but he adopts three persons within the chapter as:-

• The Solicitor principal – the Solicitor instructed by the client
• The Solicitor agent – the Solicitor who is instructed by the Solicitor principal
• The non-Solicitor agent – someone who is not a Solicitor and is equivalent to a fee earner.

Friston refers to Crane v Canons Leisure Center [2007] EWCA Civ 1352, where the Court had to consider where work was done by agents (regarding costs) for the purposes of a fee earner for the Solicitor. It was work that the Solicitors (or in this case, their fee-earner employees) could do themselves but delegated to (in this case) agents who acted as fee-earners but were not solicitors. May LJ said “I do not think that the classification of the cost of this work can sensibly depend on whether Rowley Ashworth did the work themselves, whether they delegated it to another solicitor or whether they delegated it to costs draftsmen who were not solicitors.”

Application in today’s legal history

So lets take this to the Quest Legal Advocate/LPC Law example, for ease I will call them the Solicitor Agent firm. The Claimant law firm, who is instructed by a client in respect of a personal injury matter, has an OIC liability dispute hearing. The client will be present (triggering the Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999 rights of audience) and the hearing is on the other side of England & Wales.

If it were closer to the firm’s office, someone in-house would have done it. The option is either to instruct counsel or a Solicitor agent. The Claimant law firm instructs the Solicitor Agent firm. Whilst they have Solicitors (and other authorised advocates, such as CILEX Advocates) in their [self] employ, the type of hearing does. The Solicitor Agent firm instructs one of their non-authorised self-employed advocates to attend. The process has worked, not require one just like Friston explains.

Does that mean the correct terminology is non-Solicitor agent?

I do not think so as such, I think the terminology was used to help discuss when agent fees were profit costs or disbursements. The outcome being that a Solicitor agent and non-Solicitor agent were treated no differently when it came to costs.

However, if I am wrong, the terminology is narrow because we now have a broad scope of advocates, including CILEX advocate and costs lawyers. It is interesting that today, agency fees will still be considered profit costs as it is work that could be done by the Solicitors, but Counsel’s fee is not and is deemed to be a disbursement.

I find this incredibly strange when, especially with criminal practice, many law firms have house Solicitor-Advocates who appear in the crown court, removing the exclusivity of the work being carried out by Counsel and not the Solicitors (which made it a disbursement). Interestingly I wonder where it becomes a point that that the in-house advocate’s costs in the bill of costs is deemed too much and that instructing Counsel would have been cheaper?

Adopting individual titles (CILEX agent, CILEX Advocate agent, Cost Lawyer agent, etc.) for those instructed by another firm would just be too much. Also, what do you call a non-authorised advocate? County Court agent? I think Solicitors agent would be the appropriate term to be generic, but intended to cover any advocate (save for self-employed Barristers) who work for one firm and are instructed by another. It’s just easier and more convenient.

The In-house Counsel conundrum

I knew this anyway, but Friston on Costs confirms (as above) that the nature of instructing Counsel is wholly different to that of an agent so was treated as a disbursement. Both points are important to the question of instructing Solicitors agent firms that have in-house counsel.

Some may have heard of 25 Canada Square Chambers (’25 CSC’), but it is actually a trading style of LPC Law. It is, for all intents and purposes, an SRA regulated law firm. Their ‘counsel’ are a mixture of Barristers and Solicitor-Advocates (basically, anyone who has higher rights of audience). Presumably, the instruction of Counsel via 25 CSC works in the exact same manner as an advocate via LPC Law. The work is carried out, LPC Law/25 CSC and then Counse bills LPC Law.

So, would a Barrister who is instructed via 25 CSC be instructed as Counsel (whose fee is a disbursement) or an employee of 25 CSC who is instructed as an advocate agent (whose fee would technically be claimed as profit costs)? Some of the Barristers at 25 CSC are also in chambers elsewhere (agency advocate contracts usually do not contain a non-complete clause). However, one of Barristers at 25 CSC is registered on the BSB register as employed (rather than self-employed) and are employed at LPC Law.

In my view, that can only mean one thing…. Barristers who are instructed via 25 CSC are instructed as Solicitor agents and their fees are technically assessed as the profit costs of those who instruct them. This would apply to other in-house Barrister in firms such as DAC Beachcroft or DWF Law but only if they are instructed by another firm, otherwise they are in-house counsel and their clients a billed by the firm.

Conclusion

I love this kind of content. It doesn’t really have any practical benefit, but it is just as interesting to read about.

Information 

AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.

From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.