header-logo header-logo

28 May 2021
Issue: 7934 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: SIF should stay

49939
The closure of the Solicitors indemnity Fund (SIF) should not be treated as a fait accompli, solicitor (non-practising) Andrew Stovin writes in this week’s NLJ.

He argues there is no reason for it to close at all, and questions the ethics of a decision that will deprive retired and retiring solicitors of indemnity cover.

‘The funds were raised from the profession specifically for indemnity purposes and should absolutely remain in place for that purpose,’ he writes.

SIF was a mutual indemnity fund for solicitors which closed in 2000 so solicitors could obtain cover on the open market. It will stop accepting new claims in September this year.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll