header-logo header-logo

30 April 2009
Issue: 7367 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

PI premiums predicted to rise

Indemnity premiums escalate as firms told to expect an upturn in claims

Professional indemnity premiums are rising, amid a growing number of “potential claims” against law firms.

The Law Society last week launched a package of advice and free seminars on renewing indemnity cover in response to insurers’ pressure to raise premiums. The package includes a series of free seminars and one-to-one consultations with a broker, and a practice note.

Frank Maher, partner, Legal Risk, says the advice was helpful in that it “emphasises the need for firms to get on with it”.

“The Law Society guidance recommends that firms start thinking about insurance in May, and sending out proposal forms in June. I think that’s sound.

“It’s good in that it emphasises the need for risk management. It mentions Lexcel as a tool to help in that aim. The problem is that people sometimes see Lexcel as the start and finish, when it is really the beginning of the journey,” he says.

Solicitors have to renew their insurance on 1 October. However, many solicitors want the single renewal date to be abolished.

Maher says: “The Law Society has in the past looked at this as an issue that relates only to the cost of insurance and the need to make sure firms have got it in place.

“Cost is no longer the only issue for law firms. Last September, there was concern over AIG. What if a major insurer was to fold in the weeks leading up to the renewal date? There is a risk management issue there.

“The vast majority of firms want a flexible renewal date. We are the only profession in this country that has a fixed renewal date.”

He adds: “We are seeing a large number of potential claims in relation to conveyancing. We are not seeing the claims coming through yet but that may be because the lenders haven’t been able to sell the properties. Once we see an upturn in the property market, there may also be an upturn in claims.”

Issue: 7367 / 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