header-logo header-logo

£500,000 minimum PII is “misguided”

23 July 2014
Issue: 7616 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Lawyer says proposals are based on “flawed reasoning” following “rushed” consultation

Proposals to reduce the minimum level of compulsory professional indemnity insurance cover for solicitors to £500,000 from £3m is “misguided” and would particularly affect smaller law firms.

Frank Maher, partner at Legal Risk, warned that the proposed costs savings were based on “flawed reasoning” and would have adverse consequences for many firms, in a detailed letter to the Legal Services Board (LSB) consultation. For example, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) suggested the cost of insurance could drop by 5-15% but, Maher says, if insurance usually costs less than 5% of a firm’s overheads then the reduction would amount to only a 0.25% saving for the firm. 

The SRA board voted almost unanimously for the new level at the beginning of July, although the change is subject to approval by the LSB. 

Maher told NLJ: “The real issue is that the cost saving, if any, is small for a vast reduction in cover. 

“It will take away people’s legitimate expectation of cover for work they have already done, and the cost of buying back the extra cover if they wish to do so is likely to be more than it would have been, particularly for smaller firms, so it is likely to increase rather than reduce the cost for smaller firms. I don’t see the point of them doing this. It is well-intentioned but misguided. I don’t think there is enough evidence to justify the change.”

Maher, who is in favour of a wholesale profession-wide review of indemnity cover, also criticised the length of the consultation process.

“It was quite rushed, only six weeks, so everyone was contributing blind, so to speak, whereas you benefit from hearing other people’s views. This issue is so important that I think the Law Society or SRA should hold a day’s conference where people can discuss and exchange information before going to a full consultation.”

He pointed out the scale of the problem, where in the past six years, “solicitors have bought approximately 4,500 insurance policies from insurers who have subsequently become insolvent”.

The Law Society is also opposed to the SRA proposal and has said it will not necessarily result in lower premiums, could leave smaller firms exposed and creates greater risks for clients.

Issue: 7616 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

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