header-logo header-logo

Goodbye to SIF?

24 November 2021
Issue: 7958 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Regulatory
printer mail-detail
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has launched a consultation on its proposals to close the Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF) and end its post six year run off cover

SIF provided compulsory professional indemnity cover for solicitors from 1987 to 2000, when the profession switched to an open market model of insurance. It is a requirement that all policies include provision for at least six years run-off cover if the firm closes without a successor practice. About 90% of run-off claims are made within six years, and the most common type of claim faced by a solicitor is professional negligence, which has a six-year limitation period.

SIF, which has funds of about £22m, also provides run-off cover to firms once their six-year run-off period finishes, which is known as post six-year run-off cover (PSYROC). This provides continuity of protection for the client as well as peace of mind for retired solicitors.

The SRA predicts about 45 claims in 2023, lessening to 31 in 2029. It acknowledges the risk of delayed retirement where solicitors are concerned about long-tail claims and the increased risk of disorderly closure and ‘poor outcomes for consumers’, in annex 3 of the consultation.

However, Anna Bradley, Chair of the SRA Board, said: ‘Our analysis, in the light of detailed evidence, shows that establishing or maintaining a regulatory scheme to deliver ongoing post six-year run-off cover is unlikely to be proportionate in light of the level of consumer protection it provides.’

Calling for SIF to be retained, Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said: ‘The average successful claim is over £34,000, which is a large amount of money for most people.

‘The consumers who will suffer will employ solicitors on a reasonable assumption that they would have comprehensive protection if something went wrong. The SRA is suggesting that this comprehensive protection is removed, but it is yet to demonstrate that the removal of PSYROC will have any material impact on the cost of legal services or lead to any improvement in the market for legal services.’

The consultation ends on 15 February 2022, and can be viewed here.

Issue: 7958 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Regulatory
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll