header-logo header-logo

26 March 2015
Issue: 7646 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Bar regulator lays down its terms

Minimum £500,000 terms to apply to all BSB-regulated entities

Barrister-owned entities will need to have at least £500,000 indemnity cover per claim, the Bar Standards Board (BSB) has confirmed.

The minimum terms apply to all BSB-regulated entities. Entities are businesses owned and managed by lawyers, which concentrate on activities such as advocacy, client representation in court and giving specialist advice. The BSB, which is due to start regulating entities next month, has received more than 75 expressions of interest and 16 completed applications so far. Providing confirmation about the necessary insurance arrangements is expected to encourage further interest.

The BSB has emphasised that barristers who have professional indemnity insurance in place, covering their practice as a self-employed barrister, can continue to practise in this capacity while they are waiting for entity insurance cover.

Frank Maher, partner, Legal Risk, says the terms are broadly similar to those applying to solicitors. “The cover is only £500,000 as against solicitors’ £2m (sole practitioners and partnerships)/£3m (incorporated practices). That is in line with the Bar Mutual cover which applies to barristers at present.

“This was the figure proposed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) which the Legal Services Board rejected last year—not enough in my view, because it includes claimants’ costs, so if a case goes to trial it leaves only half that or less for the claimant.

“There are a few other quirks which are potentially detrimental to consumers and not in the SRA Minimum Terms and Conditions, though they are already in the current Bar Mutual terms.”

These include (at 6.7) that if the insured refuses to settle against the insurer’s recommendation then the insurer’s liability is capped at that amount, and (at 6.8) there may be no cover if the insured offers to settle without the insurer’s authority.”

Maher says the terms contained successor practice provisions “broadly similar” to those for solicitors, which could “cause problems”.

All prospective BSB-regulated entities are urged to contact their insurer as soon as possible so as to start the process of obtaining the appropriate cover.

Issue: 7646 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll