header-logo header-logo

26 October 2021
Categories: Legal News , Profession , Cyber , Cybercrime
printer mail-detail

LNB news: SRA announces new affirmative cyber clause for solicitors

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has announced that a new clause will be added to the minimum terms and conditions (MTCs) for law firms’ professional indemnity insurance policies to address affirmative cyber cover

Lexis®Library update: The clause has been drafted with legal professionals and insurers, and it has been submitted to the Legal Services Board for final approval. If agreed, it should be in place for any insurance renewals from early 2022 onwards.

The clause means insurance policies will explicitly state whether cover for cybercrime is available and specify what losses fall within scope for a potential claim. The cover is for client and third-party protection. Losses to the law firm, ie first-party losses (except for certain costs of investigating and defending a claim) are not covered. Firms can choose to purchase a separate cyber policy for other risks.

The SRA has also published a summary of responses to the consultation regarding the addition of the new clause. Some respondents, including law firms, agreed that the SRA should be making changes to the MTCs. Insurers argued that the clause should reduce the level of cyber cover that is currently within the MTCs. While some said that the current MTCs give limited scope to manage cyber exposure and this will impact on insurers’ risk appetites and pricing, others argued that any losses caused by a cyber event should be subject to separate cyber insurance policies. One insurer said that while the clauses provided ‘clarity’ on what is covered, they did not provide ‘comfort’. These comments contrast with the Law Society, who suggested that the level of cover should be extended to cover first-party losses.

The SRA Chief Executive, Paul Philip, said ‘professional indemnity insurance offers key protection for the public. Law firms handle large amounts of client money and sensitive information, and that makes them an attractive target to cybercriminals. The clause on cyber losses provides real clarity for consumers, law firms and insurers about client and third-party protection in the event of cyber-attack, without changing the amount of cover specified by the minimum terms and conditions.’

Sources:

Cybercrime clause makes liability clear

Professional indemnity insurance: affirmative cyber cover

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 25 October 2021 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll