Does section 50 of the Solicitors Act, 1957, still have jurisdiction to control the remuneration of a solicitor?

In Elec. Trades Union v. Tarlo, [1964] 2 W.L.R. 1041 at 1050, [1964] 2 All E.R. 1 (Ch. D.), Wilberforce J. put the position thus: I think it is undisputed that section 50 of the Solicitors Act, 1957, has not taken away the general jurisdiction which the court has always possessed over the solicitors as officers of the court, and taking into account McNair J.'s judgment in Sutton v. Sears, [1960] 2 Q.B. 97, [1959] 3 All E.R. 545, the court has inherent jurisdiction to secure that the solicitor, as an officer of the court, is remunerated properly, and no more, for work he does as a solicitor. McNair J., it is right to say, says only that there is much to be said for the view that the court has that jurisdiction, but that it has such jurisdiction to my mind is clear, not only from previous authorities, but from the recent decision of Cross J. in Re Solicitor, [1961] Ch. 491, [1961] 2 All E.R. 321. Both sides agree here, so that I need not canvass the question that this jurisdiction is not limited to the case where a formal bill of costs has been delivered. It is a jurisdiction to control the remuneration.