Background
Joseph Sallabi was called to the Irish Bar in October 2023 and initially held professional indemnity insurance through Zurich Insurance from 2023 to April 2025 at a premium of €90 annually. In early 2025, Sallabi claimed to establish himself in Belgium and ceased his Irish insurance coverage, instead relying on a Brussels Bar insurance policy issued by two Belgian co-insurers. In May 2025, he informed the Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA) that he no longer had compliant Irish insurance, claiming the Brussels Bar policy covered his professional activities across all EU Member States, including Ireland.
The LSRA took the position that the Brussels Bar policy did not provide coverage for Sallabi’s legal services as an Irish barrister practicing in Ireland and did not comply with statutory requirements under the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and the 2024 Professional Indemnity Insurance Regulations. The Authority required Sallabi to cease practice unless and until he obtained a compliant policy. Sallabi refused, maintaining that the Brussels Bar policy was adequate and that the LSRA’s requirement violated his EU rights of establishment and freedom to provide services. He obtained a quotation from AON for Zurich renewal (€235 annually) but declined to proceed.
The Court’s Holding
Justice David Barniville, President of the High Court, granted all orders sought by the LSRA. The court found that Sallabi had contravened and was likely to contravene the 2015 Act and 2024 Regulations by providing or intending to provide legal services in Ireland without a compliant professional indemnity insurance policy. The court held that the Brussels Bar policy, on its proper interpretation under Irish insurance law principles, does not provide coverage for legal services delivered by Sallabi as an Irish barrister in Ireland. Article 9 of the policy and other provisions make clear that coverage does not extend to such services. The court found it significant that despite Sallabi’s repeated requests to the Brussels Bar and the brokers who arranged the policy, neither confirmed that coverage applied to his Irish practice—a failure the court found “telling” and inconsistent with a policy that genuinely covered such work.
The court rejected Sallabi’s EU law arguments, holding that they were fundamentally misplaced. Although Sallabi may be exercising rights of establishment or freedom to provide services in Belgium, he is not doing so when practicing as an Irish barrister in Ireland—the state where he obtained his qualification. Ireland is his “home Member State” and Belgium is the “host Member State” under EU Directives on lawyers’ freedom of movement. When providing legal services in Ireland, Sallabi remains subject to Irish regulatory requirements, including mandatory professional indemnity insurance under the 2015 Act and 2024 Regulations. The court also found the Brussels Bar policy non-compliant on other grounds: KBC, one of two co-insurers, does not appear on Central Bank of Ireland registers as licensed to transact insurance business in Ireland, and the policy fails to meet certain requirements of the 2024 Regulations regarding geographic scope of cover.
Key Takeaways
- Irish barristers must maintain compliant professional indemnity insurance when providing legal services in Ireland, regardless of any establishment in other EU Member States
- EU free movement rights (establishment and freedom to provide services) do not apply when a lawyer practices in their home Member State under their home professional qualification
- Insurance policies must be interpreted according to their actual scope and terms; assertions of coverage unsupported by the insurer or broker are insufficient
- Both co-insurers on a professional liability policy must be properly authorized to transact business in the relevant jurisdiction
Why It Matters
This is the first reported High Court decision under section 35 of the 2015 Act, establishing important precedent for professional indemnity insurance enforcement in Ireland. The judgment clarifies that regulatory requirements applicable to legal practitioners cannot be circumvented through reliance on EU free movement law when the practitioner is working in their home Member State. It emphasizes the centrality of professional indemnity insurance to client protection and the LSRA’s authority to enforce compliance through court orders, and it provides guidance on how insurance policy scope should be determined through careful interpretation rather than unsupported assertions.
The decision also addresses a practitioner’s creative—but ultimately unsuccessful—attempt to evade insurance requirements through jurisdictional arbitrage, establishing that home Member State regulatory obligations remain binding. The court’s firm rejection of Sallabi’s allegations against the LSRA, courts, and legal professionals signals intolerance for frivolous and baseless claims in regulatory proceedings.