Report comment

I had been thinking that the only winners from the proposals - possibly - might be insurers who could decline cover on the occasional claim, but if even they don't want it (and hardly anybody else does), one has to ask what the point is.

A major problem is uncertainty. At the moment, you pretty much know a law firm is insured for £2/3m depending on whether it is incorporated/ABS or not. That provides comfort for clients, for solicitors, their staff, former members of the firm and third parties relying on undertakings.

But when the only thing you know for certain is that there is no certainty that lender claims will be covered, threatening the very existence of many small firms, and cover for other cases will be a lottery, then trust in the profession goes by the wayside.

And will any firm pass on any savings to clients (if there are any, which I doubt), when other overheads are going up (energy, minimum wage etc etc). It is barely credible.

All very interesting for those of us who advise on coverage, but not a game-changer for those trying to earn a crust in the real world. And even large firms may suffer, so it is not just a small firm issue.

This is all predicated on some dubious data, massively understating the true extent of claims, which may yet prove to be even more erroneous than any of us had ever realised.