header-logo header-logo

29 March 2018
Issue: 7787 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Proposed cuts to indemnity insurance face backlash

​The Law Society has criticised Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) plans to cut compulsory indemnity cover as ‘utterly misguided’.

The SRA has proposed reducing the mandatory minimum professional indemnity insurance (PII) cover from the current £2m-£3m to £0.5m-£1m. It would also restrict access to the Solicitors Compensation Fund and reduce maximum payments from £2m to £500,000. Its proposals are set out in a consultation paper published last week and due to end on 15 June, ‘Protecting the users of legal services: balancing cost and access to legal services’.

Paul Philip, SRA Chief Executive, said: ‘Our proposals will help firms—particularly small ones—make sure they are not paying more than they need to protect themselves and their clients. The public would still have an appropriate level of protection, while potentially benefiting from lower costs and more choice.’

However, the Law Society said the proposals would hurt both solicitor and client.

Christina Blacklaws, Law Society vice president, said: ‘It’s important that the insurance standards are reviewed, but we need to get the balance right between protecting consumers, protecting solicitors and promoting a competitive insurance industry.

‘Premiums already reflect levels of risk in the work a firm undertakes, and cost is front-loaded into the first £500,000 of cover, so the idea that the current system is unfairly “one size fits all” is nonsense. Solicitors and their clients are protected by gold standard insurance, which is appropriate given the gravity of many of the issues we deal with.’

The Law Society further asserts that the SRA has not provided any evidence that its proposals would lower costs either for solicitors or their clients.

Blacklaws said the Law Society had been told by brokers that the proposals were unlikely to result in lower premiums. She said public trust in the legal sector was underpinned by the financial protections solicitors could offer to their clients.

Issue: 7787 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll