header-logo header-logo

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

SRA holds tight to minimum cover

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

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll