In the debate about the profession's future arrangements for indemnity cover it is surprising that so many comments fail to differentiate between the cause and effect where the solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF) is concerned.

The SIF, as the provider of indemnity cover, was the product of the 'hard' insurance market for all liability risks which was experienced in the mid-1980s, when law firms had difficulty obtaining full cover.

It was the SIF's misfortune that shortly after its inception on 1 September 1987 the UK economy went from boom to bust.

In particular, the property market remained depressed in an almost unprecedented fashion.

Faced with huge losses the lenders looked to their professional advisers on the original transactions as potentially responsible parties and the source of recovery.

First they focused on their valuers and later their solicitors.

This was not an assault the SIF invited.

For the profession in increasingly litigious times it was 'an accident waiting to happen' from which there was no escape.Solicitors are required to think, and a client's instructions may not always be straightforward.

If more time had been spent in the past reviewing lend ers' printed form instructions to solicitors, the SIF would have saved millions.

A few moments thought would have ensured both a clearer recognition of the lender as a separate client and any particular reporting requirements.

These were and are matters of basic risk awareness and management.However, faced from early 1992 with the lenders' unparalleled onslaught on the profession, the SIF has been, and continues to be, resolute in its defence of the more extreme or imaginative remedies which have been advanced.The breadth of the defence campaign and strategy required to meet the deluge will not be apparent to outsiders.

In its unique position of providing all solicitors primary cover, the SIF was able to adopt a twin track approach.

It defended individual cases to the appropriate appellate level if necessary.

At the same time, through dedicated teams of counsel and co-ordinating solicitors, the SIF managed group actions by individual lenders against myriad firms.This approach bore dividends as early as 1995 with the House of Lords decision in Target v Redferns and the initial managed hearing before Chadwick J in the Bristol & West litigation.

Together they cut off the summary judgment route and ensured judicial scrutiny of the lenders' conduct in the vital area of causation of loss.

The strategy has continued to good effect, for example, the substantive trial before Chadwick J in early 1997 and the landmark appeals in Giffen Couch & Archer and Paragon Finance v Thakerar.

The legal landscape against which the lenders' claims must be resolved has been levelled.Undoubtedly the SIF's existence has greatly assisted the profession to deal with lender claims.

It has marshalled its resources efficiently and economically in a way that a disparate group of insurers with their competing commercial interests and own insureds as well, could not.

This was vividly demonstrated at a directions hearing last year.

The lender appeared with leading and junior counsel with one co-ordinating solicitor.

The many defendant solicitors were similarly represented upon the instruction of the SIF.

The several valuers all had separate counsel and solicitors.

The aggregate cost to the insurers of the valuers must have been much greater than for either the lender or the SIF.

Ultimately, the insurers' costs would have to be passed on to the valuers in future premiums, assuming the insurers' commercial interests were served by renewing the cover.Even if the rationale for SIF's existence is only to meet proper claims against the profession, it is ironic that having fought the lenders to such good effect, the SIF is now fighting for its continued existence with the profession it has served so well.Another moment's reflection should lead the great majority to conclude that the SIF, with the changes introduced to bring contributions in line with the ever maturing run-off statistics, is a far more attractive proposition for indemnity cover than the uncertain commercial market.