Indemnity insurance reforms not worth the risk, cautions ABI


PII: Reputational risk

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is wrong to assume that premiums will fall as a result of its professional indemnity insurance (PII) reforms, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) has warned.

It said the trade-off of possible savings with damage to the profession’s reputation was not worth taking the risk.

In its response to the SRA’s consultation on reducing the compulsory layer of cover to £500,000, the ABI noted that the SRA’s own analysis showed this could leave a small minority of consumers who have suffered at the hands of a solicitor without sufficient access to redress, particularly when combined with the proposed changes to the compensation fund.

“Even if these claims would be small in number, it does not mean that this would be a price worth paying to seek to reduce costs for solicitors and their clients,” the ABI said.

It drew a comparison with the reputational damage the insurance industry has faced due to the “false” perception that insurers decline claims as a matter of course because of the publicity around the small number that are declined.

“A reduction of trust in the legal profession might have the effect of reducing the number of people seeking legal help when they require it. This runs counter to the stated aim of the SRA in its consultation paper.”

The ABI cautioned the SRA against assuming that its changes would lead to lower premiums for all solicitors, and by extension lower costs for users of legal services.

When the minimum indemnity level was doubled in 2005/06, “the average premium for a PII policy barely changed”, it observed.

The ABI also questioned whether the reforms would, as the SRA hopes, encourage new firms to enter the legal market.

“Members have expressed the view that the legal services market is already highly competitive in areas of practice more frequently used by consumers such as family law and conveyancing.

“As such, we do not anticipate that any changes in PII requirements would result in a surge in new firms entering the legal services market, save for possibly in a few niche or specialist areas.”




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

No larger firm can ignore the demands of innovation – that was the clear message from our most recent roundtable: “The law firm of the future”, sponsored by LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions. It comes in many forms, predominantly but not just technology, and is not simply a case of automating process. Expertise and process are not mutually exclusive.

Blog

20 September 2018
Simon McCrum

Why don’t lawyers do what you ask them to do?

Having been team leader, department head, division head and managing partner, I understand well the frustration (and anger) that managing partners and CEOs voice to me: “We’ve asked them a dozen times, but still they aren’t doing what we need!”

Read More