header-logo header-logo

SRA holds tight to minimum cover

11 September 2014
Issue: 7621 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has refused to back down over its controversial call for a £500,000 professional indemnity minimum limit.

Its proposal, first mooted in July, was put on hold last month when the Legal Services Board (LSB) requested more time to review the implications and suggested it might consider approval if the SRA dropped its plans to replace the current £2m minimum cover limit.

However, the SRA reiterated its stance in a letter to the LSB last week, in which SRA chief executive Paul Philip said: “We would like to make clear that we see the proposal as one change.”

Philip said: “The current level of cover is an arbitrary, generic level set several years ago with an un-evidenced distinction between partnership and limited liability law firms.”

Frank Maher, partner, Legal Risk, who is opposed to a £500,000 minimum limit, says: “I think it is important that the scheme is considered as a whole, not on a piecemeal basis, and that there is a proper opportunity for debate which we did not have when the proposal for reduction was considered over the summer.

“The issue goes wider than the public interest. Solicitors and their staff are also affected, their interests are a material consideration under s 37 of the Solicitors Act 1974, and they have been completely ignored in all the SRA’s submissions so far.”

Maher has warned the proposal could increase not reduce the cost of cover for smaller firms. The SRA’s proposals are also opposed by the Law Society.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll