header-logo header-logo

26 March 2009
Issue: 7362 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Top 100 not interested in LDPs

Lead players are showing scant interest in the new model law firms

Only 5% of the UK’s top 100 law firms believe the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007) will have a “significant impact” on them.

Reforms under the Act, which come into force next week, introduce Legal Disciplinary Practices (LDPs)—law firms which include non-solicitor lawyers, and up to 25% non-lawyers.

The top 100 firms were quizzed by professional regulation law firm, Legal Risk LLP, for its sixth annual survey on professional indemnity and risk management.

Partner Frank Maher says: “Interest is very low, and we are not seeing what was envisaged, which was the head of marketing or IT becoming a partner.”

Maher says that a fifth of the top 100 firms, and a third of top 30 firms, thought the Act would have “no impact”, while the rest thought it would have “little impact”.

“Realistically, in the current economic climate, firms are not appointing many new partners, and we have had some people questioning why they would want to take on the liability of being a partner. Also, this is only an interim measure, and any firm that converts to LDP status now will have to convert to Alternative Business Structures in a few years’ time and conform to a whole new set of regulations,” Maher adds.

The survey also reveals that 16% of the firms questioned had delayed renewing their insurance because of concerns about the industry. Maher says: “This is a real issue. It’s not just about how secure these companies are now, but in five or seven years’ time when they have to pay out on claims.”

A third of firms chose Travelers as their insurer, and 22% chose QBE. Some 14% of fi rms overall, and 23% of top 30 firms, said they had changed their insurer, with price cited price as the main reason.

Issue: 7362 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Weightmans—Elborne Mitchell & Myton Law

Firm expands in London and Leeds with dual merger

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Boodle Hatfield—Clare Pooley & Michael Duffy

Private wealth and real estate firmpromotes two to partner and five to senior associate

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Constantine Law—James Baker & Julie Goodway

Agile firm expands employment team with two partner hires

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll