header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 June 2011 / Katherine Rees
Issue: 7468 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

All change

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
gettyimages_90579995_4

Katherine Rees evaluates the impact of the SRA’s financial protection policy statement

IN BRIEF

  • Changes to the Assigned Risks Pool.
  • What solicitors can expect in the short term.
  • Fundamental review of conveyancing process.

October 2011 promises to be a time of change for the regulation of solicitors. On 6 October the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) will publish its handbook, which sets out the regulatory requirements for law firms and alternative business structures (ABSs) and the brave new world of outcomes focused regulation. ABSs are due to enter the legal services market at the same time. Solicitors must also renew their insurance cover on 1 October.

The SRA has recently announced changes to the way such insurance will operate in future. On 13 April it published its financial protection policy statement, which sets out the changes it intends to implement to the compulsory insurance arrangements for the profession and identifies other areas which have been earmarked for review and consultation.

This article looks briefly at the background to the changes and summarises the differences

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sidley—James Inness

Sidley—James Inness

Partner joins capital markets team in London office

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Haynes Boone—William Cecil

Firm announces appointment of partner as UK general counsel

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Devonshires—Nicholas Barrows

Firm appoints first chief marketing officer to drive growth strategy

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: CPR tweak closes third-party disclosure gap
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
NLJ this week: Court of Appeals wrestles with Mazur fallout
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’
NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll