header-logo header-logo

SRA holds tight to minimum cover

11 September 2014
Issue: 7621 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has refused to back down over its controversial call for a £500,000 professional indemnity minimum limit.

Its proposal, first mooted in July, was put on hold last month when the Legal Services Board (LSB) requested more time to review the implications and suggested it might consider approval if the SRA dropped its plans to replace the current £2m minimum cover limit.

However, the SRA reiterated its stance in a letter to the LSB last week, in which SRA chief executive Paul Philip said: “We would like to make clear that we see the proposal as one change.”

Philip said: “The current level of cover is an arbitrary, generic level set several years ago with an un-evidenced distinction between partnership and limited liability law firms.”

Frank Maher, partner, Legal Risk, who is opposed to a £500,000 minimum limit, says: “I think it is important that the scheme is considered as a whole, not on a piecemeal basis, and that there is a proper opportunity for debate which we did not have when the proposal for reduction was considered over the summer.

“The issue goes wider than the public interest. Solicitors and their staff are also affected, their interests are a material consideration under s 37 of the Solicitors Act 1974, and they have been completely ignored in all the SRA’s submissions so far.”

Maher has warned the proposal could increase not reduce the cost of cover for smaller firms. The SRA’s proposals are also opposed by the Law Society.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
Transferring anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing supervision to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) could create extra paperwork and increase costs for clients, lawyers have warned 
In this week's NLJ, Bhavini Patel of Howard Kennedy LLP reports on Almacantar v De Valk [2025], a landmark Upper Tribunal ruling extending protection for leaseholders under the Building Safety Act 2022
Writing in NLJ this week, Hanna Basha and Jamie Hurworth of Payne Hicks Beach dissect TV chef John Torode’s startling decision to identify himself in a racism investigation he denied. In an age of ‘cancel culture’, they argue, self-disclosure can both protect and imperil reputations
As he steps down as Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Julian Flaux reflects on over 40 years in law, citing independence, impartiality and integrity as guiding principles. In a special interview with Grania Langdon-Down for NLJ, Sir Julian highlights morale, mentorship and openness as key to a thriving judiciary
Dinsdale v Fowell is a High Court case entangling bigamy, intestacy and modern family structures, examined in this week's NLJ by Shivi Rajput of Stowe Family Law
back-to-top-scroll