header-logo header-logo

Proposed cuts to indemnity insurance face backlash

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

​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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll