The Lawyer’s new China Elite report contains the most detailed research available on the PRC legal market and contains unparalleled insight into the country's leading law firms. They vary in size, practice focus and geographic coverage, but they all share one common quality – ambition... Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
My firm specialises in CPD legal training. With the furore over opting out of SIF, we approached Lloyds to undertake a course discussing opt-out options.
I am strongly in favour of opting out, but my discussions with the insurance industry were eye-opening. I have seen little evidence of in-depth investigation as to alternative costs and general options. Perhaps this is unsurprising given the industry views we came across.
We approached insurance companies that provide top-up insurance for firms, over and above the level they achieve through the mutual fund.
Insurance companies at Lloyds are unenthusiastic about the new business. The consensus is that no firm will leave the mutual scheme, once practical considerations of private insurance are taken on board.
The mutual fund still has many outstanding claims. It is doubtful whether anyone can leave until these are paid or arranged for.
A major sticking point for insurers is that they will have to take a hard-line approach with firms that apply. This will almost certainly mean a big premium increase. This will make private insurance uneconomic. The mutual fund will be cheaper.
I cannot see how any vote on the mutual fund can take place without knowing alternative costs. If insurers are dubious, where does this leave firms?
The Law Society, prior to any SGM on the subject, should investigate such comparisons. If already done, the results should be publicised.