header-logo header-logo

20 September 2012
Issue: 7530 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Firms race for cover

The annual scramble to renew professional indemnity insurance is underway, with firms racing to meet the 1 October deadline.

Firms which fail to renew cover on the open market by that date will be automatically transferred to the Assigned Risk Pool (ARP), an expensive emergency measure that covers firms for six months only – previously, firms were able to remain in the ARP for up to 24 months. If firms have no insurance then they must cease trading.
 

However, Frank Maher, partner at Legal Risk, who advises law firms on compliance and risk management, said: “The market is fairly benign.
 

“The big firms are seeing a reduction in their rate and in their premium. Everybody’s fears of cataclysmic claims coming out of the recession have not materialised.
 

“There are a lot of conveyancing and mortgage claims against high-street firms but that has not been reflected by claims against the big firms. Inevitably, a few firms will close down. History relates that it is usually about 1 September that firms find out they have a wayward fee earner.
 

“We have had a few firms looking to close down or sell up, but it’s not a nightmare. There are more insurers out there, particularly for smaller firms, for example, Axis and Elite have joined the market, so there is enough competition to keep the prices down.”

Maher said renewing indemnity has become “more complicated” for smaller firms in recent years.
“It used to be that you could appoint a broker you trusted and he would shop around, but now brokers generally do a deal with a particular insurer where they have exclusive rights to sell the insurance; therefore, if smaller firms want to shop around, they have to go to lots of brokers.”
The ARP is due to be scrapped in October 2013.

Issue: 7530 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll