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

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll