Delegated authority ATE schemes have become an increasingly popular way for solicitor firms to streamline the process of arranging after the event (ATE) insurance. By allowing firms to issue policies within agreed parameters, delegated authority can reduce administration, improve efficiency and help cases progress more quickly.
However, whilst a well-managed delegated authority scheme can deliver significant operational and commercial benefits, poor governance or outdated processes can also expose firms to unnecessary risk. Plus, because many of these issues develop gradually over time, they often remain unnoticed until a problem arises.
With that in mind, we’re exploring some of the most common risks associated with delegated authority ATE schemes and are taking a dive into exactly what firms can do to avoid them.
Beginning with…
Risk #1: Applying cover outside the agreed authority
One of the biggest risks within any delegated authority arrangement is issuing policies outside the scope of the authority granted by the insurer.
This could include applying cover to ineligible case types, exceeding agreed limits, or failing to follow the underwriting criteria set out within the scheme. The truth is, whilst these issues are rarely intentional, even isolated errors can create complications if a claim is later challenged or a policy is found to have been issued incorrectly.
Firms can avoid this by:
Regular training, clear internal guidance and periodic audits, which all to help ensure delegated authority is exercised consistently and within agreed parameters.
Risk #2: Processes that haven’t evolved with the business
Delegated authority schemes are often introduced when a firm has a particular case profile or way of working. The challenge here is that businesses rarely stand still, and over time, firms may expand into new areas of litigation, increase case volumes, introduce new technology or change internal workflows.
In other words, if delegated authority arrangements aren’t reviewed alongside those changes, existing processes may no longer reflect the firm’s operational needs.
Firms can avoid this by:
Conducting regular reviews to help ensure delegated authority schemes continue to align with both the firm’s objectives and the insurer’s expectations.
Risk #3: Inconsistent application across teams
As firms grow, it’s common for multiple fee earners or departments to operate under the same delegated authority scheme.
Without consistent procedures, however, different teams may begin interpreting eligibility criteria differently, resulting in variations in how policies are issued. That means that any inconsistencies not only increase operational risk but can also make compliance more difficult to demonstrate if a file is reviewed.
Firms can avoid this by:
Standardising procedures, documenting guidance and ongoing training to help create a more consistent approach across the business.
Risk #4: Record keeping that falls short
Delegated authority brings with it an expectation that firms maintain clear, accurate and accessible records. However, if policy decisions, eligibility assessments or supporting documentation aren’t recorded appropriately, it can become difficult to demonstrate compliance or explain why cover was arranged in a particular way.
Firms can avoid this by:
Thorough record keeping, which will provide valuable evidence that delegated authority has been exercised correctly. This helps to protect both the firm and its clients, should questions arise later.
Risk #5: Assuming your scheme still meets today’s requirements
One of the most common mistakes isn’t necessarily doing something wrong, it’s assuming that because a delegated authority scheme has worked well for several years, no review is needed.
In truth, as the legal landscape continues to evolve, case types become more complex, regulatory expectations develop and firms themselves grow and change.
As a result, delegated authority arrangements that were appropriate several years ago may no longer provide the flexibility, efficiency or governance required today.
Firms can avoid this by:
Reviewing schemes on a regular basis to identify potential improvements before small issues become larger operational challenges.
Overlooking the client experience
Inconsistent processes or avoidable administration can create unnecessary delays that ultimately affect the client’s experience. When administered effectively however, delegated authority can help reduce delays, improve case progression and provide clients with greater confidence that matters are moving forward efficiently, and
Because of this, ensuring delegated authority arrangements support both operational efficiency and positive client outcomes, should remain an important consideration for every firm. The good news is that most delegated authority risks are entirely manageable, and the key lies in adopting a proactive approach rather than waiting for issues to emerge.
The value of regular scheme reviews
Delegated authority ATE schemes remain one of the most effective ways to streamline insurance placement and improve operational efficiency. Still, like any delegated responsibility, they require regular oversight, as small issues, inconsistent processes or outdated arrangements can gradually increase risk without firms realising the impact until much later.
That’s where we come in. Our team at amberis work with solicitor firms across the UK to help ensure their delegated authority ATE arrangements remain robust, compliant and fit for purpose.
So, whether you’re reviewing an established scheme or simply want reassurance that your current processes continue to meet today’s requirements, our experienced team can provide independent, practical guidance tailored to your firm’s needs.
If you’re keen to hear more, contact us today to discuss how we can help you maximise the benefits of delegated authority while reducing unnecessary risk. We’re here to help, and we’re here to do ATE insurance the right way.