*/
Colin Edelman QC on professional indemnity insurance for BSB regulated entities and the threatened future of Bar Mutual.
Self-employed barristers were first compelled to have professional indemnity insurance as a pre-condition for practice in 1980, on the basis that a responsible profession had to have regard to the interest of consumers by ensuring that consumers with valid negligence claims should not be prejudiced by the potential inability of barristers to meet judgments entered against them.
In introducing this requirement, the Bar rejected a proposal for a Master Policy, opting instead for an open market solution with the insurance being provided by various insurers. By 1985, however, the number of insurers offering insurance to the Bar had shrunk to only two, only one of which was willing to provide a quotation to all chambers. Furthermore, although insurers had agreed to adopt a common policy wording, premiums for each barrister were entirely at the discretion of the insurers and any claim (or even the threat of a claim) resulted in very substantial (sometimes in excess of 1000%) increases in premium. Not only were premiums increasing but also there was no transparency as to how they were calculated. Furthermore, insurers could accept or reject barristers without reason. Finally, barristers were not receiving quotations from insurers until the day before the expiry of their existing cover, which was causing immense uncertainty and rendering it impossible to obtain alternative quotations. In short, the supposed benefits of open market competition for the provision of insurance had proved to be illusory.
Responding to an urgent need for change, the Bar Council resolved at its Annual General Meeting in October 1987 to form Bar Mutual as the compulsory provider of primary layer professional indemnity insurance to the self-employed Bar in England and Wales. Bar Mutual has insured the self-employed Bar since April 1988. Its mission, then and now, is as follows:
All these goals have to date been achieved, in marked contrast to the turmoil that has in recent years beset the market for professional indemnity insurance for solicitors (the solicitors’ mutual indemnity insurance arrangements having ceased in 2000).
Bar Mutual response to BSB Consultation on Entities In reply to the Bar Standards Board (BSB)’s Third Consultation on the Regulation of Entities’ issued in August 2010, Bar Mutual had confirmed its intention to continue to provide high quality and fairly priced insurance cover to all entities and self-employed barristers regulated by the BSB. In response to the BSB’s 2012 Consultation, given the uncertainty that had emerged as to the scope of the activities of multi-person entities that would be regulated by the BSB, Bar Mutual stated as follows:
“Bar Mutual is open to the possibility of providing professional indemnity insurance to entities regulated by the BSB. However it is concerned that some entities may not present risks compatible with those presented by the self-employed barristers Bar Mutual is required to insure and so is likely only to wish to consider applications for insurance from such entities on a case by case basis.”
Bar Mutual has indicated to the BSB its willingness to find a solution that would enable it to insure all such entities (eg by seeking reinsurance for any aspects of the activities of multi-person entities that presented risks which were not compatible with those presented by self-employed barristers). To date, Bar Mutual has yet to receive from the BSB a definitive set of criteria as to the scope of activities by a multi-person entity that would allow it to fall within the purview of the BSB. Bar Mutual has throughout expressed its willingness to insure single-person entities (ie self-employed barristers who choose to practise through their own entity).
Bar Mutual has made it clear to the BSB on a number of occasions, however, that all entities regulated by the BSB which provide barrister-like services and which Bar Mutual would therefore regard as presenting risks which were compatible with those presented by self-employed barristers would not only have insurance made available to them by Bar Mutual but should also be obliged to insure with Bar Mutual, as is presently the case for the self-employed Bar. As Bar Mutual has explained to the BSB, firstly this would create a “level playing field” for the provision of professional indemnity insurance to those offering the same type of legal services to the public, regardless of the business model through which the services were provided, and secondly the absence of any compulsion to insure with Bar Mutual could jeopardise the long-term future of Bar Mutual. This is because commercial insurers might cherry-pick all the best risks (i.e. those generating the highest premiums and with the best claims records) with “loss-leader” premiums (ie rates artificially below Bar Mutual’s) in an attempt to build market share and corner the market, leaving Bar Mutual as insurer of last resort.
The strategy of commercial insurers would no doubt be to force Bar Mutual to cease operating, enabling them then to increase their premiums.
The current situation
On 28 November 2014 the BSB secured approval from the Legal Services Board to authorise and regulate entities. It started accepting applications to approve entities in January and will authorise them from April 2015.
Unfortunately, the BSB Handbook does not currently include a requirement for entities (whether single person or multiperson) to insure with Bar Mutual. Nonetheless, as regards Bar Mutual’s 2015 policy year which will commence on 1 April 2015, Bar Mutual’s position (subject to satisfactory finalisation of the BSB’s Minimum Terms of Cover for entities) is as follows:
If the BSB is unable to secure a change to the provisions of the Handbook to extend the requirement to insure with Bar Mutual so that it applies to these entities (such a change requiring the approval of the Legal Services Board), it is far from being fanciful that, faced with the prospect of Bar Mutual being left as, in eff ect, insurer of last resort, the Board of Directors of Bar Mutual may in due course conclude that the protection of the Members’ interests would be best served by winding up Bar Mutual. In any event, if there is no such change, Bar Mutual will have to review whether, and if so on what basis, it will continue to be in the interest of its Members to insure entities at the 2016 renewal, which must include reserving the right to adopt a selective approach to the insurance of entities and taking into account the individual claims records of each applicant, which of course is not currently the case.
It is therefore critically important that the BSB amends its Handbook during 2015 so as to require all single and multiperson entities offering barrister-like services to place their primary level of professional indemnity insurance with Bar Mutual.
In introducing this requirement, the Bar rejected a proposal for a Master Policy, opting instead for an open market solution with the insurance being provided by various insurers. By 1985, however, the number of insurers offering insurance to the Bar had shrunk to only two, only one of which was willing to provide a quotation to all chambers. Furthermore, although insurers had agreed to adopt a common policy wording, premiums for each barrister were entirely at the discretion of the insurers and any claim (or even the threat of a claim) resulted in very substantial (sometimes in excess of 1000%) increases in premium. Not only were premiums increasing but also there was no transparency as to how they were calculated. Furthermore, insurers could accept or reject barristers without reason. Finally, barristers were not receiving quotations from insurers until the day before the expiry of their existing cover, which was causing immense uncertainty and rendering it impossible to obtain alternative quotations. In short, the supposed benefits of open market competition for the provision of insurance had proved to be illusory.
Responding to an urgent need for change, the Bar Council resolved at its Annual General Meeting in October 1987 to form Bar Mutual as the compulsory provider of primary layer professional indemnity insurance to the self-employed Bar in England and Wales. Bar Mutual has insured the self-employed Bar since April 1988. Its mission, then and now, is as follows:
All these goals have to date been achieved, in marked contrast to the turmoil that has in recent years beset the market for professional indemnity insurance for solicitors (the solicitors’ mutual indemnity insurance arrangements having ceased in 2000).
Bar Mutual response to BSB Consultation on Entities In reply to the Bar Standards Board (BSB)’s Third Consultation on the Regulation of Entities’ issued in August 2010, Bar Mutual had confirmed its intention to continue to provide high quality and fairly priced insurance cover to all entities and self-employed barristers regulated by the BSB. In response to the BSB’s 2012 Consultation, given the uncertainty that had emerged as to the scope of the activities of multi-person entities that would be regulated by the BSB, Bar Mutual stated as follows:
“Bar Mutual is open to the possibility of providing professional indemnity insurance to entities regulated by the BSB. However it is concerned that some entities may not present risks compatible with those presented by the self-employed barristers Bar Mutual is required to insure and so is likely only to wish to consider applications for insurance from such entities on a case by case basis.”
Bar Mutual has indicated to the BSB its willingness to find a solution that would enable it to insure all such entities (eg by seeking reinsurance for any aspects of the activities of multi-person entities that presented risks which were not compatible with those presented by self-employed barristers). To date, Bar Mutual has yet to receive from the BSB a definitive set of criteria as to the scope of activities by a multi-person entity that would allow it to fall within the purview of the BSB. Bar Mutual has throughout expressed its willingness to insure single-person entities (ie self-employed barristers who choose to practise through their own entity).
Bar Mutual has made it clear to the BSB on a number of occasions, however, that all entities regulated by the BSB which provide barrister-like services and which Bar Mutual would therefore regard as presenting risks which were compatible with those presented by self-employed barristers would not only have insurance made available to them by Bar Mutual but should also be obliged to insure with Bar Mutual, as is presently the case for the self-employed Bar. As Bar Mutual has explained to the BSB, firstly this would create a “level playing field” for the provision of professional indemnity insurance to those offering the same type of legal services to the public, regardless of the business model through which the services were provided, and secondly the absence of any compulsion to insure with Bar Mutual could jeopardise the long-term future of Bar Mutual. This is because commercial insurers might cherry-pick all the best risks (i.e. those generating the highest premiums and with the best claims records) with “loss-leader” premiums (ie rates artificially below Bar Mutual’s) in an attempt to build market share and corner the market, leaving Bar Mutual as insurer of last resort.
The strategy of commercial insurers would no doubt be to force Bar Mutual to cease operating, enabling them then to increase their premiums.
The current situation
On 28 November 2014 the BSB secured approval from the Legal Services Board to authorise and regulate entities. It started accepting applications to approve entities in January and will authorise them from April 2015.
Unfortunately, the BSB Handbook does not currently include a requirement for entities (whether single person or multiperson) to insure with Bar Mutual. Nonetheless, as regards Bar Mutual’s 2015 policy year which will commence on 1 April 2015, Bar Mutual’s position (subject to satisfactory finalisation of the BSB’s Minimum Terms of Cover for entities) is as follows:
If the BSB is unable to secure a change to the provisions of the Handbook to extend the requirement to insure with Bar Mutual so that it applies to these entities (such a change requiring the approval of the Legal Services Board), it is far from being fanciful that, faced with the prospect of Bar Mutual being left as, in eff ect, insurer of last resort, the Board of Directors of Bar Mutual may in due course conclude that the protection of the Members’ interests would be best served by winding up Bar Mutual. In any event, if there is no such change, Bar Mutual will have to review whether, and if so on what basis, it will continue to be in the interest of its Members to insure entities at the 2016 renewal, which must include reserving the right to adopt a selective approach to the insurance of entities and taking into account the individual claims records of each applicant, which of course is not currently the case.
It is therefore critically important that the BSB amends its Handbook during 2015 so as to require all single and multiperson entities offering barrister-like services to place their primary level of professional indemnity insurance with Bar Mutual.
Colin Edelman QC on professional indemnity insurance for BSB regulated entities and the threatened future of Bar Mutual.
Self-employed barristers were first compelled to have professional indemnity insurance as a pre-condition for practice in 1980, on the basis that a responsible profession had to have regard to the interest of consumers by ensuring that consumers with valid negligence claims should not be prejudiced by the potential inability of barristers to meet judgments entered against them.
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
The long-running fee-paid judicial pensions saga continues. The current cut-off date for giving notice of election to join FPJPS is 31 March 2024, and that date now gives rise to a serious problem, warns HH John Platt