Report comment

Presumably the SRA propose to reduce the minimum terms because they think it will mean legal work will be cheaper for consumers - sorry, clients. If so, isn't this likely to be a fallacy? As Anon @14.48 points out, it is the basic terms which cost, not the extra layers. Also, in many firms (granted, not all) the cost of the minimum PI cover will be a relatively small part of the overall expenses. Staff, rent, business rates etc will form the far greater part of operating expenses. If operating costs are reduced by (say) 5%, does that mean clients will automatically be charged 5% less?