header-logo header-logo

27 July 2021
Categories: Legal News , Insurance / reinsurance , Profession , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

LNB news: Law Society publishes guide on closing Solicitors Indemnity Fund

The Law Society has published a guide relating to the closure of the Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF), which will stop accepting new claims after 30 September 2022
Lexis®Library update: The Law Society states that the closure of the SIF affects firms in different ways, depending on if or when a practice closed.

The Law Society has identified four groups, and the steps that solicitors could now be taking in preparation for the closure of SIF:

Group A—firms that closed on or before August 2000 are covered by SIF and will continue to receive cover after SIF is closed

Group B—firms that closed between 1 September 2000–30 September 2016 face the most difficulty and should continue to engage with the insurance market. The Law Society notes it has also actively been engaging with the market, however limited alternatives are available.

Group C—firms that have closed since 1 October 2016 will not enter the SIF as it closes to new claims after 30 September 2022, which is before the six-year mandatory run off period ends. Unless alternative arrangements are made, this group will be left without protection when run-off cover expires.

Group D—existing or new firms' principals will need to consider steps to minimise future liability and will not benefit from the SIF.

The Law Society reminds firms to continue to pay for their run-off insurance. Failure to do so has negative effects, as participating insurers provide cover, regardless of whether premium has been paid. This leads to increased professional indemnity insurance premiums for the profession as a whole.

Source: Closure of the Solicitors Indemnity Fund

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 26 July 2021 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Clarke Willmott—Megan Bradbury

Corporate team welcomes paralegal in Southampton

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

Howard Kennedy—Paul Moran

London firm strengthens real estate team with partner appointment

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

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