header-logo header-logo

10 December 2014
Issue: 7634 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Lawyer welcomes rejection of PII “bombshell”

Frank Maher, partner at Legal Risk, has welcomed the Legal Services Board (LSB) decision to reject plans to reduce the minimum level of professional indemnity insurance (PII) cover to £500,000.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) had proposed lowering the minimum cover from £2m for firms, and £3m for incorporated firms and LLPs, to £500,000 to create more flexibility in the market. However, the LSB said in November that it was “not persuaded by the evidence put forward”. 

Maher says: “There was no credible evidence that there would be any real saving and the costs of buying back cover would have been substantially more.”

He added that he was surprised to find that “nobody at the SRA or LSB seemed to have realised the bombshell revelation that the £500,000 would include claimants’ costs”.

“There was no mention of it in the SRA’s discussions. In practice it would mean that the protection given would only have amounted to about £250,000 or £300,000 if the case was contested. It is frightening that they did not appreciate this.”

Maher concludes: “It takes us back to where we were, which is that we need a full review of professional indemnity insurance. No insurance covers everything so we need to look at what is reasonable.”

 

Issue: 7634 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll