header-logo header-logo

12 August 2014
Issue: 7619 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

£500k minimum PII plan delayed

Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) plans to reduce the minimum level of compulsory professional indemnity insurance (PII) cover for solicitors to £500k in time for this year’s renewals, could be scuppered by the Legal Services Board’s (LSB’s) decision to give itself extra time to consider the proposal.

The SRA’s proposal—which was submitted in July this year—has drawn fierce criticism from stakeholders across the board, with the Law Society, the Legal Services Consumer Panel, Council of Mortgage Lenders and Association of British Insurers all having written to the LSB, urging it to knock back the plan.

Legal Risk LLP partner, Frank Maher—who describes the SRA’s six-week consultation on the issue as “rushed” and claims that the proposed costs savings were based on “flawed reasoning”, which would have adverse consequences for many firms—is claiming the LSB’s decision to extend its consideration period as a “partial victory”.

In a letter to the SRA, the LSB—which has an initial decision period of 28 days under the Legal Services Act 2007—said it was using its option under the Act to extend the consideration period until 10 October 2014. Since most solicitors renew their PII on 1 October, even if the LSB approves the new arrangements, they are unlikely to be introduced until next year at the earliest.

The LSB says it may not use all the additional time it has given itself, but says the issues raised in the application are too complex to assess in the original timeframe.

SRA executive director for policy, Crispin Passmore, says: “The LSB has always had the option of extending its assessment periods and often does so: this is not an unusual move. We made clear in our application to the LSB that a positive decision by the end of August would allow the rules to come into force in time for the 1 October 2014.

“If the LSB does not make a decision in time, or does not approve the rule changes, then the current rules remain in place for those policies that need to be renewed on 1 October. The ball is very much in the court of the LSB, and we will comment further when appropriate.”

Issue: 7619 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll