![]() |
|
||||
![]() ![]() ![]() |
A significant part of our practice as solicitors involves advising other professional firms on mergers and partnership issues. Successor practice issues under the Law Society’s Minimum Terms and Conditions of insurance for solicitors in England and Wales represent about a sixth of our practice – advising insurers, brokers and firms and resolving disputes. We provide solutions to many successor practice issues and have helped several firms avoid taking on such liabilities. We may even be able to assist in cases where firms are proposing to acquire the practice of a sole practitioner. Prevention is better than cure, but we also help firms who discover problems after the acquisition of a practice. We advise on both strategic planning and claims-related problems with a Plain English, problem-solving approach. We also provide training for insurers and brokers - including a 2 hour workshop - contact Frank Maher for further information. Resources
Some of the issues are highlighted in the following articles by partner Frank Maher:
Growing Pains view Insurance implications of mergers and lateral hires (The Lawyer 26 Jun 2006) Brokers are exposed to professional liability claims if they advise client law firms that have merged or taken on new teams without a full understanding of their changed profile. Successor practice provisions under the Law Society's Minimum Terms and Conditions - Article by Frank Maher (Insurance Times, 27 September 2007).
Mergers can leave a sting in the tail; problems arising from successor practice provisions(Insurance Times, April 2006).
(Managing Partner magazine, November 2004). The same article appeared in the Australian Law Practice Bulletin for December 2004-January 2005 with additional articles on law firm risk management - click here to download. (Managing Partner magazine, December 2004). The same article appears in the Australian Law Practice Bulletin for February 2005 with additional articles on law firm risk management - click here to download. (Association of Partnership Practitioners newsletter, November 2004). There have been no reported cases on the successor practice provisions, which is unsurprising as disputes will generally be resolved by arbitration. There have however been three cases reported on the Minimum Terms and Conditions, the first of these as yet only reported on Lawtel. For the Lawtel summaries click here. Lawtel subscribers can access them and the full text of the first case by clicking on the following links -
- Qualified Insurers subscribing to the ARP v Graham Ross >
- Law Society and others v Dixit Shah and others > About the rules The aim of the rules is to ensure, as far as possible, that there will be insurance in place to cover claims against firms which no longer exist. The aim is laudable, but it can strike where least expected. The events creating the liability may have occurred years before the demise of Solicitors Indemnity Fund was even contemplated.
Partners in a successor firm are liable to meet insurance excesses and pay increased premiums arising from claims even though, in law, they may not be liable to the claimant.
Successor practice liability is not invariably to be avoided, but a business risk to be considered carefully when considering mergers, acquisitions and lateral hires. It is easy to be caught out - as firms large and small have found out.
There are many traps for the unwary. Even when a firm intends to accept successor practice liability, for example on merger, there are opportunities for cost saving and issues to consider carefully, including notification issues, what to do about top up insurance and double insurance problems with unforeseen twists.
Further information
Contact frank.maher@legalrisk.co.uk Tel: 0845 330 6791
|