The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) published a discussion paper, ‘Next steps on the SIF’, last week, which explores concerns that, while the number of consumers potentially impacted by historic negligence cases is small, the impact upon them can be significant. It outlines options for retaining SIF with changes to reduce operating costs or replacing it with ‘a new consumer protection arrangement within the SRA’,and invites feedback by 31 August on specific issues including the approach to claimant costs and claims from large corporate entities. The SRA Board will use the feedback to discuss next steps at its September meeting, and may hold a further consultation after that.
SIF was originally due to close this year but was given a year’s reprieve until September 2023 following lobbying by the Law Society and others.
Welcoming the paper, Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said: ‘Consumers trust their solicitor is adequately and appropriately insured, and that they will be compensated for any losses on the rare occasion something goes wrong.’
Retired solicitor Gill Mather, formerly practising as Mather & Co Solicitors, urged people to respond to the consultation and also join a group campaigning to keep SIF open by emailing sifundclosure@outlook.com. She said it wasn’t clear from the discussion paper what the SRA’s suggested other options were.
‘The basic fact is that, although reducing SIF’s operating costs is desirable, there is no reason at all to close SIF,’ she said.
‘SIF has significant reserves and the level of retained funds has hardly moved in 20 years. A report commissioned by the Sole Practitioners’ Group this year found that there is little doubt that SIF can continue for some time to come without the need for additional funds.
‘Ergo, we don’t need this “new consumer protection arrangement” or any other arrangement.
‘The SRA’s paper acknowledges that the response to their 2021/2022 consultation indicated that the legal profession would be willing to fund the cost of ongoing consumer protection via a levy and would not expect this cost to be passed on to consumers of legal services generally.’
