header-logo header-logo

29 March 2018
Issue: 7787 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Proposed cuts to indemnity insurance face backlash

​The Law Society has criticised Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) plans to cut compulsory indemnity cover as ‘utterly misguided’.

The SRA has proposed reducing the mandatory minimum professional indemnity insurance (PII) cover from the current £2m-£3m to £0.5m-£1m. It would also restrict access to the Solicitors Compensation Fund and reduce maximum payments from £2m to £500,000. Its proposals are set out in a consultation paper published last week and due to end on 15 June, ‘Protecting the users of legal services: balancing cost and access to legal services’.

Paul Philip, SRA Chief Executive, said: ‘Our proposals will help firms—particularly small ones—make sure they are not paying more than they need to protect themselves and their clients. The public would still have an appropriate level of protection, while potentially benefiting from lower costs and more choice.’

However, the Law Society said the proposals would hurt both solicitor and client.

Christina Blacklaws, Law Society vice president, said: ‘It’s important that the insurance standards are reviewed, but we need to get the balance right between protecting consumers, protecting solicitors and promoting a competitive insurance industry.

‘Premiums already reflect levels of risk in the work a firm undertakes, and cost is front-loaded into the first £500,000 of cover, so the idea that the current system is unfairly “one size fits all” is nonsense. Solicitors and their clients are protected by gold standard insurance, which is appropriate given the gravity of many of the issues we deal with.’

The Law Society further asserts that the SRA has not provided any evidence that its proposals would lower costs either for solicitors or their clients.

Blacklaws said the Law Society had been told by brokers that the proposals were unlikely to result in lower premiums. She said public trust in the legal sector was underpinned by the financial protections solicitors could offer to their clients.

Issue: 7787 / 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