header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 November 2014 / Philip McCormack
Issue: 7630 / Categories: Opinion , Profession
printer mail-detail

Groundhog Day?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
mccormack_0

Proposals for the SRA’s compensation fund to meet uninsured firms’ negligence claims seem oddly familiar, says Philip McCormack

Midnight, 31 August 2000. Tony Blair was yet to complete his first term in 10 Downing Street. The millennium bug hangover had not fully worn off. And the legal profession was on the brink of parting ways with its Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF). As many will recall, the Solicitors Indemnity Rules stipulated that all firms make contributions to the SIF. They were to do so at varying levels, according to their turnover and claims history. In return, they were entitled to up to £1m of cover. A deficit of more than £450m, accelerated by discounted contributions failing to meet liabilities, precipitated the SIF’s demise.

Then came demutualisation and, with it, the birth of the Assigned Risks Pool (ARP). This new fund of last resort facilitated cover for firms which were unable to obtain it on the open market, and provided run-off cover for those firms whose insurers had gone insolvent. The open market initially provided a seemingly

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll