With the SRA’s compliance conference taking place last week there have certainly been a lot of issues to keep us on our toes…..
We hope you enjoy this edition of our newsletter. Is there anything you would like us to put into the next edition?
Blog: The SRA, regulatory reform and consumerism: what’s the real agenda?
After attending the SRA conference last week, Jon has had a bit of a rant about the regulator’s ambitions to become a champion of the free market:
“This is a slippery slope, from which there might be no return. The profession needs to think long and hard about the implications.”
Read the full blog here.
PII analysis
A recent SRA analysis of the PII market found that a high proportion of claims came from certain activities, with conveyancing being top of the list. It also found that 98% of cases settled for less than £580,000. The SRA is adamant that this is not a re-hash of the previous proposals! On the back of the LSB’s rejection of the SRA’s proposal to reduce cover from £3 million (£2 million for unincorporated practices) to £500,000 two years ago, the SRA this month published analysis of professional indemnity insurance trends. Indemnity insurance is a firm’s highest cost of regulation, and this is particularly so for small firms with sole practitioners paying the highest premiums as a percentage of turnover at 7%.
Why is it important?
The PII proposals could pose risks for both consumers and firms. There has been criticism that this is not in line with the SRA’s statutory responsibility to clients. For solicitors, although it could mean cheaper insurance (there is no guarantee of that), they could be left facing claims above the indemnity limit.
Continuing competence
You’re probably well aware of the new requirement, as of 1st November 2016 (yes that is next week!), for all solicitors to move to the SRA’s new regime of Continuing Competence. This completely replaces the old system of CPD hours and is compulsory.
Information overload
On the 20th October 2016 the SRA
published ideas about improving information available about solicitors to the public. It’s fair to say this was a hot topic at the SRA’s recent compliance conference! The discussion paper suggests that the SRA could publish practice restrictions, complaints data and insurance claims. With the aim to make it easier for consumers to compare providers and make informed choice. Paul Phillip, SRA Chief Exec. stated ‘We know that the public look to the regulators to provide credible, authoritative, objective information’. The concern among the profession is that without giving any context to the information, it is likely to be distorted in a way that is unfair to some firms or members of the profession.
Why is it important?
The profession wants to be transparent (despite the brave suggestion otherwise by a member of the panel at the SRA conference), but there are valid concerns about how this information will be presented in order to give the consumer enough useful information in order to make an objective decision. Is the SRA not at a risk of causing more confusion to the consumers they wish to protect?
Have you paid the correct Court fee?
A claim by a Defendant that a
case was invalid because the wrong Court fees had been paid was rejected by the High Court. In the case of
Dixon v Radley House Partnership and Mr Christopher Reading and others the Defendants applied to amend its Defence to plead limitation. They alleged that although proceedings had been issued before limitation, following issuing proceedings and after limitation had passed, it was apparent that the claim should not have been limited to £50,000. as had been done. It was submitted as insufficient Court fees had been paid, proceedings had not been ‘brought’ for the purpose of the Limitation Act 1980.
Why is it important?
It has to be right that time stops running for the purpose of the Limitation Act 1980 when proceedings are issued. The case (hopefully) demonstrates the shift towards rejecting claims or applications based on a technicality.
RTA lawyers face committal
LV= have been given
permission to bring committal proceedings against two further solicitors after two contrasting medical reports emerged in a road traffic accident claim they were handling. There are now 4 solicitors from the defunct firm Taylor Kinght and Wolff, facing committal proceedings relating to the case. The differences in the two reports were described as ‘stark’, the one served on the insurer had a prognosis of 6-8 month period on whiplash to the neck and wrist and the other included in the trial bundle (no doubt in error!) had injuries resolving within one week from the date of the accident. Whilst HHJ Walden-Smith, residing, accepted that a solicitor, on client’s instructions, can of course raise points with the medic, there are issues in this case around what instructions (if any) were given by the client, how the medic came to change his opinion (with a letter purporting to have been constructed after the event) and coaching the client into giving false evidence.
Why is it important?
No doubt this case is sending shivers down the spines of every PI lawyer in the country, most with at least a handful of clients at any one time unhappy with their medical report. What the case demonstrates is that whilst you can (and of course should) ask questions of the medical expert, you need to have complete clarity and an audit trial on both the client’s instructions and the instructions to the expert. At all times you can not lose sight of the fact that you are first and foremost officers of the Court.
Practising Certificate Renewals
A quick reminder that these must be submitted by Monday 31st October 2016!
Law Society – practice note updates
19.10.16 – Provision of Services Regulations 2009
05.09.16 – Client Care Information