Welcome to the new-look Legal Futures, refreshed and redesigned to be mobile optimised. We have run enough stories highlighting the importance of mobile optimisation, and we are finally practising what we preach.

The proposals by the Solicitors Regulation Authority for reform of compulsory professional indemnity insurance (PII) for solicitors in England & Wales include a reduction in cover to £500,000 (£1m for conveyancing) and exclusion from compulsory cover of the protection for commercial clients whose turnover is in excess of £2m. The proposals also include an aggregate limit of run-off cover of £1.5m (£3m for conveyancing). These limits include claimants’ costs. Leaving clients, solicitors’ staff, and those solicitors and staff who have retired from the profession, to the fate determined for them by those who decide how much cover to buy is like holding the passengers and crew on the Titanic responsible for their fate.

Call me pedantic, but I like precision when I’m talking about compliance. Recently, I was invited to speak at the Internet of Agreements conference on identity. I was giving the legal perspective, specifically around AML/KYC. Of course, identity from an AML perspective has a very specific meaning and purpose, and it became clear to me that, having been immersed in this regulated world for 13 years, that perhaps other people don’t appreciate the nuances of it. The terms CDD/KYC/AML are used interchangeably by non-AML people, to indicate that one approach to identity will work for all three, but it’s not that straightforward.

While discussing the Claims Liability Bill in the House of Lords last month, Conservative Baroness Berridge, a former barrister, voiced her concerns. She argued that, while the bill may well support the government’s aim of reducing fraudulent personal injury claims, this could be at the expense of those most vulnerable, the claimants themselves. “It is a high burden on your Lordships’ House to ensure that the bill hits the target of fraudulent claims as accurately as it can without the shrapnel hitting genuine claimants,” she said. There is good reason for her to be apprehensive.

In March 2018, the Solicitors Regulation Authority published a consultation paper which outlines proposals for reforming the Solicitors’ Compensation Fund and professional indemnity insurance. We have reflected on the proposals and, whilst we have a number of concerns, it’s important to note that not all of the proposals are detrimental and the consultation does present some pragmatic solutions, such as separating the insurer agreement from the minimum wording, which we feel will result in better and more easily understood products. We applaud the SRA for consulting, but we do have serious concerns around the data used and its interpretation of it.