header-logo header-logo

D-day casualties expected

10 September 2009
Issue: 7384 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Professional indemnity insurance deadline could cause the closure of many firms

Firms across the country are struggling to renew their professional indemnity insurance ahead of the 1 October deadline, and some could be forced to shut shop at the end of this month.

Negligence claims against professionals are on the rise as people seek to recoup losses in the economic downturn—according to City law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, 80 professional negligence cases were heard against lawyers in the high court in 2008, up from 31 in 2007. This has created a hostile environment for firms seeking indemnity cover, particularly if they have an adverse claims history or perceived exposure to future claims.
“We know of firms that are having real difficulty getting any kind of quote at all,” says Frank Maher, partner at Legal Risk, which advises law firms on risk management. “Firms that have any sort of claim problem are having enormous trouble.”

Maher says he knows of one firm that renewed for £20,000 last year and has been quoted £103,000 this year. The firm has had a potential but unchanged claim for £200,000 hanging over it both years. “Some people out there are having real grief, and some firms—real ‘names’ in their areas—will be closing down,” he said. “The high street is going to be quite different on 1 October. With just two weeks to go, it’s all a bit scary.”

Large firms and medium-sized firms that have no claims problems will be “fine”, he predicted, with the average firm’s claim rising by 5%–10%. About 500 firms could be forced to apply to the assigned risks pool, the fallback or “last resort” option for those who can’t obtain cover on the open market.
However, some firms will be unable to afford the premiums, which amount to more than a quarter of gross fees, and will have to close down.

Syscap, an independent finance provider to professional services firms, says the number of law firms asking for short-term funding to pay for insurance premiums has risen this year. This is partly because insurers have been more reluctant to grant law firms payment holidays on their premiums.

Chief sales officer, Mark Gidge says: “This year we have noticed a marked increase in larger firms asking for this finance as well as a general increase in the number of requests we have received.

“Obviously the much publicised fall in law firm revenues has exacerbated the problem.” 

Issue: 7384 / 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