header-logo header-logo

153 firms left without cover

31 October 2013
Issue: 7583 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

SRA confirms large number of firms have failed to secure PII

A total of 153 firms have failed to secure new professional indemnity insurance cover, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has confirmed.

The 153 have now gone into the second, 60-day stage of the extended policy period (EPP). The first 30-day stage ended yesterday.

Firms can carry on as normal during the first stage, but can only deal with existing instructions during the second stage. If the firms have not found insurance by 29 December, they will have to close.

The SRA had been notified of 226 firms that needed to go into the EPP, but 73 of those have since secured cover.

Frank Maher, partner at Legal Risk solicitors, says: “The numbers are quite small when compared with the number in practice, but that doesn’t reveal the scale of human misery with people facing bankruptcy, not to mention the effect on their staff and families.”

The 1,300 firms who were insured with Latvian insurer Balva also face uncertainty, given the six-year run-off period. The Latvian authorities withdrew Balva’s operating licence in June. 

Maher says he is dealing with some firms who were insured with Ukrainian insurer Lemma, which went into liquidation two years ago. The Financial Services Authority protection scheme covers 90% of claims where the firm has a turnover of less than £1m.

“Most firms who were with Lemma will qualify for the scheme, some don’t in which case they are personally liable,” he says. 

Maher says he knows of three top 100 firms that had problems with renewal this year, which showed that that indemnity insurance is a profession-wide issue.

“I think it’s high time the profession explored what consumer protection we can offer going forward,” he says.

“We should have a conference of the profession about this, with representatives of the consumer interest invited to participate so they can understand that it’s not possible to provide complete protection when that protection may be illusory. It would be better to have less protection from insurers who can deliver than complete insurance from insurers who may not—the wider the cover the more it forces firms to obtain insurance from insurers who can’t offer peace of mind."

 

Issue: 7583 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details
RELATED ARTICLES

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll