header-logo header-logo

11 June 2013
Issue: 7564 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Move towards single indemnity scheme

Indemnity status quo expensive for lawyers & consumers
 

Professional indemnity insurance and compensation funds should be joined together in a single scheme, according to a Legal Services Consumer Panel report.

The scheme would set minimum terms and conditions for all lawyers’ indemnity insurance, with premiums based on the type of legal work rather than professional title. It would include a single compensation fund for clients unhappy with the service they receive.

The Panel rejected a suggestion that consumers purchase their own insurance instead of lawyers sourcing cover, claiming that this would unfairly transfer risk to clients and would be counter-productive as clients would reject firms which don’t self-insure and might risk not taking out insurance.

However, the Panel was in favour of the regulators continuing to explore options to reduce the need for lawyers to hold onto client money, such as escrow schemes. The report, Financial Protection Arrangements, which was published after a Legal Services Board request, reviews the system for compensating consumers who suffer as a result of fraud, negligence or firms becoming insolvent.

Concerns highlighted by the Panel included data protection issues between regulators and institutions such as insurers and banks, and too little research with consumers about their experience of accessing the schemes.

The Panel has also published a paper on how risk and responsibility should be divided between consumers and providers. Elisabeth Davies, Panel chairman, said: “We think the same level of protection could be delivered at a lower cost if the different regimes were united under a single scheme covering all lawyers. The status quo is expensive for lawyers and consumers ultimately pay the price.”

 

Issue: 7564 / 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