header-logo header-logo

Affirmative cyber cover

27 October 2021
Issue: 7954 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Cyber
printer mail-detail
An extra clause addressing affirmative cyber cover is to be added to the minimum terms and conditions for professional indemnity insurance, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has announced

The clause has been submitted to the Legal Services Board for final approval. If agreed, it will be in place for insurance renewals from early 2022 onwards.

It means insurance policies will explicitly state whether cover for cybercrime is available and specify what losses fall within scope for a potential claim. The cover is for client and third-party protection.

Losses to the law firm (first-party losses) are not covered, except for certain costs of investigating and defending a claim. However, firms can purchase a separate cyber policy for other risks.

Paul Philip, SRA chief executive, said: ‘Law firms handle large amounts of client money and sensitive information, and that makes them an attractive target to cybercriminals.

‘The clause on cyber losses provides real clarity for consumers, law firms and insurers about client and third-party protection in the event of cyber-attack, without changing the amount of cover specified by the minimum terms and conditions.’

The SRA published its 2021-22 business plan last week, following a consultation exercise in which more than 8,000 people voiced their opinions. Key areas of work for the SRA in the coming year, starting in November, include delivering the new Solicitors Qualifying Examination, building partnerships in lawtech, increasing its focus on anti-money laundering, developing its presence in Wales, and researching factors underpinning the attainment gap and over-representation of black and ethnic minority solicitors within enforcement processes.

Responding to feedback to its consultation, the SRA has also added: explaining its approach to assuring advocacy standards, capturing information on its legal service unbundling pilot, continuing to tackle cybercrime and confirming its commitment to considering environmental and climate issues through its work.

Issue: 7954 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Cyber
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll