Compulsory insurance remains essential, but the current arrangement has not been evaluated against alternatives in years. Professional input suggests that while the system works, its efficiency, transparency, and effect on legal practice costs require fresh examination.
Professional indemnity insurance is mandatory for private legal practice in NSW, serving as a key safeguard for consumers. A well-designed system ensures consistent coverage, reliable claims handling, and public trust. However, without regular review, it may increase costs for firms, particularly smaller and regional ones, while limiting innovation in the insurance sector.
The existing model, which depends on one approved insurer, has been in place for decades. Supporters argue it provides stability and uniform standards, but critics claim it lacks pricing transparency and may inflate premiums. Higher costs could reduce access to legal services for individuals, small businesses, and community groups.
Related: New ALA president outlines key priorities
The discussion also considers whether the system still suits today’s legal profession, which includes more sole practitioners and specialized practices than when the model began. If evidence shows competition could maintain protections without drawbacks, reform becomes more compelling.
Most legal markets in Australia and abroad use multiple insurers, indicating competition does not necessarily weaken consumer protections. Any change would need careful oversight, with strict standards for policy terms, claims handling, and financial stability. A gradual transition could assess whether competition improves affordability, insurer reliability, and claims performance before final decisions are made.
Practical input from solicitors familiar with the current system is sought. Submissions do not need to be complex—just clear accounts of what works, what doesn’t, and where the model creates unnecessary obstacles.
Key concerns include whether premiums are fair and transparent, if the policy approval process is straightforward, and whether small or regional firms face disproportionate burdens. Safeguards against insurers suddenly withdrawing coverage are also under scrutiny. These details will influence the committee’s recommendations.
Related: MBM Commercial hires corporate solicitor 1‑2 years PQE
If the current model remains the best option, that position must be supported by current evidence. If competition could maintain protections while improving choice and accountability, the profession should consider it. Maintaining the status quo without deliberate evaluation would be the least desirable outcome.
Angelique Nesbitt, principal of Augmena, has encouraged lawyers to share their experiences, emphasizing that the committee’s work will benefit from real-world input.
The discussion centers on whether the existing system still best protects clients or if competition could offer improvements.