header-logo header-logo

15 November 2007 / Simon Young
Issue: 7297 / Categories: Features , Risk management
printer mail-detail

Risk management focus

SOLICITORS CODE OF CONDUCT 2007 >>
MINIMUM INTERRUPTION TO CLIENT BUSINESS >>
ABSENCES WITHIN FIRMS >>

 What’s all this about having to make a plan under the new rules for what happens to the firm in the event of a disaster? How on earth do I know what might happen?

You’re quite right, there is a provision in the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007 which is relevant. You can find it in rule 5.01(1)(k). You’ll remember that rule 5.01 generally makes it a collective responsibility of all partners to ensure there are effective processes for various things.

Well, for this one, the idea is simple enough: it just says you have to make arrangements for the continuation of the practice of the firm in the event of absences and emergencies, with the minimum interruption to clients’ business.

Well, of course I want to protect the partners, but why should this be a matter for the regulators?

You’re missing the point. This isn’t a rule for your benefit; it’s for the benefit of the client.

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

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll