t’s easy to see why the SRA wants to scrap the assigned risks pool. Many firms that enter do not survive, killed off by punitive premiums (and, of course, many never pay up anyway).

It is loathed by insurers, who pay huge sums to underpin firms they have already refused to touch, which in some cases continue to generate claims while breathing ARP oxygen.

The ARP is also maligned by many solicitors, who resent high premiums passed on to them.

This year, matters have come to a head, with a record number of firms in the pool, and many more with a good claims history thinking ‘that could have been us’.

Renewals were chaotic, with accusations of late quotes and even discrimination by insurers. Certain profiles of firm, for example immigration firms that do some conveyancing work, were denied cover by insurers afraid of ‘dodgy’ transactions involving foreign clients. Never mind the fact that, for many wholly legitimate immigration firms, it makes good business sense to offer conveyancing work when their clients settle in the UK.

Should insurers decide whether these firms remain in business?

The ARP is not necessarily a ‘sin bin’; it may also contain firms that simply had the wrong profile, or the wrong name. Abolishing it outright is far from being the straightforward decision it might first appear.