header-logo header-logo

22 January 2014
Issue: 7591 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

SRA list placed in doubt

Lawyer issues warning over list of 136 uninsured firms

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has taken the unusual step of naming 136 firms which failed to obtain indemnity cover, and is considering banning unrated insurers altogether.

The firms did not have indemnity insurance by the 1 October deadline and failed to secure new cover during the 90-day extended policy period. The SRA said it named the firms “in the interests of protecting consumers and third parties”, adding that “robust action” was being taken against some firms which had not closed properly.

However, Frank Maher, partner at Legal Risk, says: “The list of 136 should be treated with caution. I know of one firm which had a quote which it could afford but decided to merge instead and is on the list. I heard of another who had planned to retire anyway. So there are firms on the list which should not be.  

“I also believe it does not present a true picture of the problems experienced on the last renewal once account is taken of the forced closures and mergers and sales which took place in anticipation of the renewal, not to mention those crippled by premiums and debt.”

How the next renewal of insurance is likely to pan out is “very difficult to predict”, Maher says.

“I don’t want to sound too alarmist about it, and it may be ameliorated by the number of firms who did deals for more than 12 months, but I would expect another filtering out of a few firms. I know there are firms with deteriorating claims who are already concerned.”

The SRA Board is due to meet this week, to decide whether to consult on a ban on unrated insurers.

Maher says: “On the assumption that that will happen, as tends to be the case, we can expect further pressure."
 

 

Issue: 7591 / Categories: Legal News
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