header-logo header-logo

Bar regulator lays down its terms

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

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

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