header-logo header-logo

26 March 2009
Issue: 7362 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Top 100 not interested in LDPs

Lead players are showing scant interest in the new model law firms

Only 5% of the UK’s top 100 law firms believe the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA 2007) will have a “significant impact” on them.

Reforms under the Act, which come into force next week, introduce Legal Disciplinary Practices (LDPs)—law firms which include non-solicitor lawyers, and up to 25% non-lawyers.

The top 100 firms were quizzed by professional regulation law firm, Legal Risk LLP, for its sixth annual survey on professional indemnity and risk management.

Partner Frank Maher says: “Interest is very low, and we are not seeing what was envisaged, which was the head of marketing or IT becoming a partner.”

Maher says that a fifth of the top 100 firms, and a third of top 30 firms, thought the Act would have “no impact”, while the rest thought it would have “little impact”.

“Realistically, in the current economic climate, firms are not appointing many new partners, and we have had some people questioning why they would want to take on the liability of being a partner. Also, this is only an interim measure, and any firm that converts to LDP status now will have to convert to Alternative Business Structures in a few years’ time and conform to a whole new set of regulations,” Maher adds.

The survey also reveals that 16% of the firms questioned had delayed renewing their insurance because of concerns about the industry. Maher says: “This is a real issue. It’s not just about how secure these companies are now, but in five or seven years’ time when they have to pay out on claims.”

A third of firms chose Travelers as their insurer, and 22% chose QBE. Some 14% of fi rms overall, and 23% of top 30 firms, said they had changed their insurer, with price cited price as the main reason.

Issue: 7362 / 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