header-logo header-logo

04 December 2013
Issue: 7587 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

If disaster comes…

Partners “worryingly” unaware of consequences of insolvency

Law firm partners are “worryingly” unaware of the significant personal costs they could face if their firm ceases to trade without a successor practice in place.

Even though the current climate for law firms is tough, one out of two law firm partners do not know what financial losses they might incur in the event of insolvency, according to a new report by accountants Baker Tilly, The importance of being financially stable.

The report offers advice to partners on different ways to assess stability within their firm, and how to cope with an unplanned failure. Under law firm regulation, the firm itself is required to be financially stable yet the report uncovered a lack of understanding of how to gauge stability and what it really means, and the implications of regulatory intervention by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

The report suggests that law firms may in future want to retain more of their profits in the business, even though this is not tax-efficient.

George Bull, chair of Baker Tilly’s professional practices group, says: “There is a worrying lack of knowledge and understanding about the implications of a law firm falling into insolvency. 

“All possible steps should be taken to avoid an unplanned cessation of business which can be very costly for individual partners. However, all too often, partners don’t take action in time, either because they fail to pay sufficient attention to their cashflow, or because they wilfully bury their heads in the sand.”

In the last year, several well-known law firms have gone under, including Midlands firm Blakemores, which closed in March after an SRA intervention. National firm Cobbetts collapsed in January, and was later sold to DWF. Yorkshire firm Atteys was shut down by the SRA in March. In October, financially struggling Manches was bought in a “pre-pack administration” deal by Penningtons.

 

Issue: 7587 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll