Report comment

The comments from this round table session make interesting reading. The contributors are experts, and they seem almost universally against the SRA's proposals for change in PII requirements and scope. They rightly point to a complete lack of supporting evidence for the SRA's assertions (note the frequency of words like 'should' and 'may' and 'we expect' in their consultation) and correctly highlight the risks associated with the proposals, including uninsured and under-insured claims, removal of firms from mortgage providers' panels and so on.

The SRA's determination to press ahead - despite what experts and evidence suggests - is entirely in line with how we seem to do things these days (Brexit, anyone?) and needs to be challenged.

The most glaring problem is the complete lack of evidence that premiums for firms opting for lower cover would reduce - this is about as likely as motor insurance claims falling after the changes regarding soft tissue injuries in motor accidents - and here the regulator is showing a staggering level of naivety about how insurance markets work.

Clients cannot be left in a position where the onus is on them to enquire on every occasion they speak to a solicitors firm what level of insurance is held and for what work types. And the proposed 'apartheid' to exclude 'wealthier' clients and businesses with £2m+ turnover (setting the bar so low captures thousands that are owner-managed; certainly not large/corporate) is simply inequitable.

These proposals pose huge reputational risk to the solicitors profession for no credible potential gain. Solicitors firms should engage with the SRA Consultation while there is still time.