header-logo header-logo

SIF back by popular demand?

13 April 2022
Issue: 7975 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail
The Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF) could be granted a 12-month reprieve, following a robust response to a consultation on its future

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) will now seek to extend the fund, which provides supplementary run-off cover for firms that have closed, until September 2023 while it considers points raised in feedback. Any extension must be formally approved by the Legal Services Board.

The SRA consultation, which ended in January, received more than 330 formal responses and saw direct engagement with about 3,200 people. It considered closing SIF and moving to an open market model as well as ending the requirement for post six-year run-off cover.

As a result of this feedback, the open market solution has been ruled out. The SRA also reports the majority of respondents did not support the option of ending the requirement for post six-year run-off cover since, although claim volumes are small respondents thought the potential impact on individual consumers could be significant if no protections were in place.

Respondent law firms and solicitors also expressed willingness to contribute toward funding future arrangements and highlighted the risk that future claim volumes might increase.

Anna Bradley, SRA chair, said: ‘There was widespread agreement that providing appropriate consumer protection was key, but there is clearly still room for debate about how this might be delivered.’

I Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society, which campaigned to keep SIF open, said: ‘We are delighted the SRA has listened to our concerns about closing SIF and has instead given the fund another chance.

‘Possible alternatives to SIF include making changes to how the fund is set up and operated, reducing the scope of protection it gives, or finding a different consumer protection vehicle funded via SIF’s surplus—which may also be subsidised by the profession.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll