header-logo header-logo

‘Relief’ as SIF replacement revealed

21 September 2022
Issue: 7995 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail
Solicitors have welcomed a decision to replace the Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF) with an indemnity scheme managed by the regulator.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) will run indemnity arrangements from September 2023, maintaining cover to the same level as SIF for post six-year run-off claims.

The SIF was scheduled for closure in 2021—a move which would have left retired solicitors or solicitors who had closed down their firm vulnerable to potentially ruinous claims where negligence was alleged to have happened in a historic matter.

Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said: ‘This is likely to be a relief to the many members, and former members, who have been worried that the closure of SIF would mean the ending of post six-year run-off cover (PSYROC) as a regulatory arrangement, when for most there was little prospect of finding alternative comparable protection on the open market.

‘However, following lobbying from the Law Society and other stakeholders, the SRA sought an extension to the fund, so that it would have time to seek views on how to sustainably maintain essential consumer protections and develop a new policy for the future’.

Boyce said the decision meant ‘consumers will continue to enjoy long-term protections when they employ a solicitor for legal advice’.

The SRA will launch a public consultation before the end of this month on the arrangements and rules for the SRA-run indemnity scheme. Boyce said the Law Society would work constructively with the SRA to make sure the scheme was affordable in the long term, provided good value for money and protected clients and solicitors alike to the same extent as under SIF.

Anna Bradley, chair of the SRA board, said: ‘We have been looking at how best to maintain consumer protection for negligence claims brought more than six years after a firm has closed in a cost-effective and proportionate way and have decided that an SRA-run indemnity scheme is the right way forward.

‘This approach will provide that important protection for those who need it, while giving us clear oversight of how the indemnity operates, enabling us to run the scheme efficiently and realise potential cost savings’.

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