Market intelligence for law firms of the future

Law Society and CLC clash on switching regulators

Print This Post

18 July 2016


Sheila Kumar

Kumar: status quo “not justifiable”

The Law Society and Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC) have clashed on plans by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to make it easier for law firms to switch regulator.

Catherine Dixon, chief executive of the society, warned that the plans “could leave existing and past clients of firms that switch regulator without appropriate cover”. However, her counterpart at the CLC, Sheila Kumar, said the status quo was “not justifiable”.

Under the current rules, SRA firms transferring to the CLC are treated as closing down, triggering a requirement to purchase six years of run-off cover separately at a cost which could amount to two or three times their annual indemnity insurance premium.

In its consultation on the issue, the SRA proposed waiving this requirement.

The CLC said the SRA was “simply catching up with what the Legal Services Act permits”, and called on it to dismantle barriers “completely” as part of its review of professional indemnity insurance that is promised for later this year.

Ms Kumar added: “Requiring firms that transferred from SRA regulation to take out run-off cover when they were continuing in business and had ongoing indemnity insurance was not justifiable. It has acted to stop practices being able to choose a regulator that is tailored to their work.”

The CLC introduced a solicitor-style open market indemnity scheme this month, including run-off cover for a period of six years as part of participating insurers’ minimum terms and conditions.

However, Ms Dixon said: “The Law Society supports the SRA’s aim to encourage a competitive market by removing unnecessary barriers to switching regulator – but this must not be at the expense of client protection.

“We are concerned that the SRA’s proposals could leave existing and past clients of firms that switch regulator without appropriate cover.”

Ms Dixon added that that law firms should only be able to switch regulator without triggering the run-off requirement if they secured indemnity insurance equivalent to the SRA’s minimum terms and conditions for six years “to cover claims arising from matters concluded before the switch”.

Meanwhile, the Bar Standards Board (BSB) is seeking lawyers interested in setting up alternative business structures to take part in a pilot which will pave the way for the first licences.

The BSB has said it expects licence the first ABSs in October this year, following approval from the Ministry of Justice. Firms wishing to take part in the pilot should contact it by the end of this month.

Tags: , ,



Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

The ethics of the SRA’s social media warning notice

Mena Ruparel

Social media portals are regularly used by firms and those who work for law firms in both professional and personal capacities. Their informal nature and the fast pace of use makes it all too easy for regulated people to get carried away with online discussions or comments which can fall foul of the regulator. This is more likely to happen on social media platforms as these are virtual, accessed in the solicitor’s own time and space. It can be easy to forget that solicitors are regulated just the same at 11pm on their home computer as they are at 3pm in the office or at court.

September 15th, 2017






Maintained by Pixel Pixel