header-logo header-logo

11 June 2013
Issue: 7564 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Move towards single indemnity scheme

Indemnity status quo expensive for lawyers & consumers
 

Professional indemnity insurance and compensation funds should be joined together in a single scheme, according to a Legal Services Consumer Panel report.

The scheme would set minimum terms and conditions for all lawyers’ indemnity insurance, with premiums based on the type of legal work rather than professional title. It would include a single compensation fund for clients unhappy with the service they receive.

The Panel rejected a suggestion that consumers purchase their own insurance instead of lawyers sourcing cover, claiming that this would unfairly transfer risk to clients and would be counter-productive as clients would reject firms which don’t self-insure and might risk not taking out insurance.

However, the Panel was in favour of the regulators continuing to explore options to reduce the need for lawyers to hold onto client money, such as escrow schemes. The report, Financial Protection Arrangements, which was published after a Legal Services Board request, reviews the system for compensating consumers who suffer as a result of fraud, negligence or firms becoming insolvent.

Concerns highlighted by the Panel included data protection issues between regulators and institutions such as insurers and banks, and too little research with consumers about their experience of accessing the schemes.

The Panel has also published a paper on how risk and responsibility should be divided between consumers and providers. Elisabeth Davies, Panel chairman, said: “We think the same level of protection could be delivered at a lower cost if the different regimes were united under a single scheme covering all lawyers. The status quo is expensive for lawyers and consumers ultimately pay the price.”

 

Issue: 7564 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll