header-logo header-logo

Solicitors Indemnity Fund given reprieve (for now)

16 June 2021
Issue: 7937 / Categories: Legal News , Insurance / reinsurance , Profession , Regulatory
printer mail-detail
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has announced the extension of the Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF) for a further year.

The delay means SIF will continue to provide post six-year run-off cover until September 2022 for claims against firms which have closed without a successor practice.

The extension is good news for retired solicitors, some of whom warned the closure of SIF would leave them exposed to the risk of historical claims.

The SRA will now consult on the future of post six-year run-off cover. It warned this week the extension is subject to an affordability test because the fund is deemed beyond the time when a conventional insurance company would have taken steps to bring it to a close.

Anna Bradley, chair of the SRA Board, said: ‘We will need to give careful consideration to finding the right regulatory balance between consumer protection and issues of proportionality, affordability and the wider public interest.’

However, Bradley said she recognised the concerns of the legal profession and the fact the insurance market has hardened, making it more difficult for alternative arrangements to be found.

Post six-year run-off cover is additional to the mandatory six-year run-off cover which the SRA requires firms to have. SIF closed in 2000 when the profession moved to an open market insurance model. It was originally due to close in September 2017, but there have been several extensions since then.

Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said: ‘We have been raising our concerns with the SRA, the regulator for this issue, for more than three years. 

‘We are pleased they are now taking steps to find an effective solution and undertake the detailed analysis required to assess the future of post six-year cover.

‘But it is not enough simply to delay closure again in the hope that next year the commercial indemnity insurance market will change and fill the gap in consumer protection that SIF closure will create. It needs to show imagination in looking at long-term solutions that provide proper levels of consumer protection and do not expose solicitors to ruinous claims or consumers to potentially lengthy and complex litigation.’

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