Beware of shortfall

Michael Simmons argues that the SIF should be revived for the purpose of insuring those firms that are not strong enough to obtain better terms in the open market (see [2003] Gazette, 26 June, 14).

How does he think that an insurer, which by definition would be insuring mainly or exclusively weaker firms, could do so without either incurring a loss or requiring premiums at least as high as the market insurers?

Possibly Mr Simmons has forgotten the substantial shortfall incurred by the SIF in the early 1990s, which was, in my view, one of the main reasons why the profession (not the Law Society) voted in 1999 to move to market insurance for professional indemnity.

He does not mention that in his description of the background to the introduction of the new arrangements.

I should add that since the change to the new arrangements I have become a director of Solicitors Indemnity Fund Limited, but I write in a personal capacity and not on behalf of SIF or anyone else.

Michael Mathews, East Sheen, London