header-logo header-logo

New claims risks for shuttered firms

21 April 2021
Issue: 7929 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Insurance / reinsurance , Legal services
printer mail-detail

Closure of old mutual fund leaves retired solicitors exposed

Former owners of law firms that shut in the past two decades could be exposed to huge bills for new claims when the old mutual Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF) closes later this year.

SIF ends on 30 September, 20 years after solicitors voted to move from a mutual system of professional indemnity insurance (PII) to a market-based model. Since then, SIF has provided supplementary run-off cover for firms that have closed, protecting clients, partners and staff once their mandatory six-year run-off period comes to an end.

The old mutual fund has already been given two reprieves―it was originally due to close to new claims in 2017 and then 2020, but was kept open following Law Society lobbying on behalf of its members.

Once it closes, any new claims against a firm that ceased trading without a successor practice will be uninsured if the six-year run-off cover has expired and the former principals haven’t made alternative arrangements. This means the former partner would be personally liable.

‘Make no mistake, there is a significant risk of claims arising more than six years after firms cease operations, with data suggesting over 10% of claims are made outside the SRA’s mandatory run-off period,’ Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said.

‘If you practised in areas such as conveyancing, wills and trusts, child personal injury settlements or matrimonial property, claims can occur decades after work was completed. You may want to contact your broker to see if they can arrange replacement cover. This would not have to be on the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s minimum terms, and less comprehensive cover may meet your needs.’

However, she warned many firms would struggle to find appropriate cover on the open market, especially where there were ‘factors such as poor claims histories’ and ‘having worked in areas with higher risk of late-arising claims’. Boyce said the Law Society was searching for workable alternatives but, as the representative body, had no powers regarding indemnification; therefore, members and former members should prepare for the possibility that no broad solution can be found.

Email SIF@lawsocietySIF@lawsociety.org.uk.org.uk to keep informed of any updates.

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