header-logo header-logo

Indemnity insurers in low-risk mindset but firms taking a chance on cyber attacks

26 July 2023
Issue: 8035 / Categories: Legal News , Insurance / reinsurance , Cyber , Technology
printer mail-detail
Seven in ten (72%) firms have not purchased cyber insurance amid a hardening professional indemnity cover market overall, research has shown.

While 28% of firms bought cybercrime cover—an increase on the 21% who made the purchase in 2018—a further 33% of firms thought about it but didn’t go ahead, and 39% didn’t even consider it, according to the Law Society report, 'Latest trends in professional indemnity insurance for law firms', published last week.

Law Society president Lubna Shuja described the low take-up as ‘concerning’, given how more work is being conducted online post-pandemic.

Solicitors Regulation Authority minimum terms and conditions for professional indemnity insurance explicitly exclude from cover first-party losses from cyber attacks or other problems related to information technology. The Law Society has produced guidance on purchasing cyber insurance, available here.

A government report published in April, 'Cyber security breaches survey 2023', showed one in ten businesses had fallen victim to cybercrime in the previous 12 months. Larger businesses experienced higher risk—the strike rate was one quarter of medium-sized businesses, and nearly two-fifths of large businesses.

The professional indemnity insurance market for solicitors has hardened since 2018, when the Law Society last carried out a survey, with 56% (compared to 76% in 2018) reporting it was easy to purchase insurance.

Shuja said: ‘We advise firms to start budgeting for increased premiums and perhaps consider premium financing as a way to spread costs through the year.

‘We also recommend firms start the renewal process early; around three months before your renewal date. That means that if you are one of the more than 40% of firms who still have the old common renewal date of 1 October, you should have contacted your broker already to start exploring the right cover for your firm.’

She said some firms could face much higher premiums, particularly where they had high staff turnover, large numbers of fee earners or carried out high amounts of conveyancing work. New firms and firms switching insurers have faced difficulties with some underwriters imposing minimum prices for premiums, she said. However, for firms working in low-risk areas, the premium increase was likely to be in the low single figures.

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