Why does history always have to repeat itself? The comment of my professional colleague Dugald Sproull is very similar to the views I held about the Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF) and the position from which I challenged the SIF monopoly in the late 1990s.

It seems to me that the root problem is the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s tolerance of solicitors now in the assigned risks pool (ARP), in much the same way as the Law Society did not take firm enough action against firms with a poor claims record in the days of SIF. To make matters worse, it is my understanding that many of the firms in the ARP do not pay the premium they are supposed to pay, as a result of being in the ARP, yet they are still allowed to remain in business. Why?

I am totally at a loss to understand the argument that this is in some way affording consumer protection. The reality is that insurers will not put up with their obligation to contribute to the ARP indefinitely. It is my understanding that, while some insurers are perfectly happy with their ‘books’, they are becoming increasingly reluctant to accept contributions to the ARP.

If, as a result, they withdraw from the market, more and more solicitors will be unable to obtain cover on reasonably commercial terms. The corollary of this is that some firms with good claims records will have to close. But, then again, I am not alone in the profession in believing that it is the agenda of government and/or the Law Society to reduce the number of firms in the community which, in my view, is not in consumers’ best interests.

Ultimately, the very consumers the ‘politicians’ purport to want to protect will be the losers in the long run and the sooner the firms with poor claims records are put out of business the better.

In that regard, I am reminded of an incident about 10 years ago when my firm had a routine Law Society inspection. During the opening meeting, I asked the inspector what he would do if he found, at the end of his inspection, that my accounts were in disarray and/or client money was missing? His response was that they (presumably the Law Society) would help me get my accounts in order. As I told him at the time, it is my view that was the wrong answer. The correct answer was that the firm should have been closed down by the Law Society immediately. As it turned out, and as I had expected since I believe I run a ‘good’ firm, the inspection passed without further comment.

Finally, despite the concerns of some professional colleagues, I understand that in SIF’s final year the total of the ‘premiums’ collected from the profession was about 10% greater than the total of the premiums paid in the open market today.

Michael Dalton, Daltons, Petersfield, Hampshire