header-logo header-logo

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

New claims risks for shuttered firms

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

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll