PI adequacy standards by UK regulated profession — 2026
Different UK regulated professions have different minimum PI cover standards — some prescribed by rule, some scaled to fee income, some left to ‘adequate’ interpretation. This side-by-side comparison sets out the specific minimum for each profession, the calculation method, and where the practical requirement typically exceeds the regulatory floor.
The framework in one paragraph
There are three main approaches to PI adequacy in UK regulation: (1) flat prescribed minimum (SRA MTC, BSB, MIPRU); (2) fee-income scaled minimum (ICAEW, IPReg); (3) ‘adequate’ interpretation with case-law standards (BCS, CIM, RCVS, GMC private). Each approach creates a different negotiation dynamic at renewal.
The flat-prescribed regimes
SRA MTC (solicitors)
Minimum £2m per claim, £3m per claim for partnerships and LLPs (from Qualifying Insurer). Aggregation via same-or-related-series language. Six-year run-off standard.
BSB (barristers)
Minimum £500,000 per claim. Aggregation typically per-claim.
FCA MIPRU 3 (insurance brokers)
Minimum €1.3m per claim / €1.9m aggregate (currently ~£1.15m / £1.7m). Cover must be from EEA or equivalent regulated insurer.
Notaries (Faculty Office)
Minimum £1m per notarial act plus fidelity bond.
CLSB (costs lawyers)
Minimum £100,000 per claim; firm-level adequacy typically much higher.
The fee-income-scaled regimes
ICAEW Bye-law 61 (accountants)
PII must be at least 2.5x gross fee income, subject to £100k minimum and £5m maximum per claim.
IPReg PII Rules (trademark/patent attorneys)
Fee income < £250k: minimum £500k per claim.
£250k-£500k: £1m.
£500k-£1m: £2m.
£1m-£2m: £2.5m.
£2m+: £3m.
The ‘adequate’-interpretation regimes
ARB (architects)
ARB Standard 8 requires ‘adequate’ PI cover but does not prescribe a specific limit. Practice-size and project-risk determine adequacy. Turnover-band-scaled cover typical (£250k-£1m for small practice; higher for BSA-touching work).
RICS (surveyors)
RICS PII Requirements require ‘adequate’ cover linked to turnover bands. £250k floor for smallest firms, scaling to £5m+ for larger practices.
BCS (IT consultants)
BCS Code of Conduct implies duty-of-care standard. No prescribed limit. £1m minimum typical for BCS Chartered members.
CIPD (HR consultants)
CIPD Code of Professional Conduct sets professional-competence standard. No prescribed limit. £1m minimum typical for CIPD Chartered practice.
GMC private practice (medical consultants)
GMC requires ‘adequate’ cover for private practice. Typically £3m-£10m+ depending on specialty.
RCVS (veterinary)
Adequate cover expected. Practice Standards Scheme accreditation requires PI. £1m typical for small-animal practice.
Where practical requirements exceed regulatory floors
Client contracts routinely require cover materially above regulatory minimum. Corporate clients often require £5m-£10m regardless of profession-specific rule. Public-sector prime-contractor work commonly requires £10m+.
Insurers price adequacy based on the regulatory floor plus practice-mix, claims-history, and firm-size overlays. Firms at the regulatory floor with challenging practice mix face materially higher rates than firms carrying market-typical excess above the floor.
Practical implications
- Know your regulator's specific rule.
- Test your firm's current cover against realistic worst-case exposure, not just regulatory minimum.
- Consider client contract requirements alongside professional-body rule.
- Review at renewal whenever practice-mix, revenue, or client base changes materially.
- Document the adequacy assessment — some regulators (notably ICAEW) require formal adequacy documentation.