Reviving the SIF

It is significant that Michael Simmons, who suggests that the Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF) should rise like a phoenix, should be a consultant with a large firm of solicitors (see [2003] Gazette, 26 June, 14).

One of the problems with any mutual fund such as the SIF is that the minnows have to pay the cost of the pikes.

The SIF was abolished because the minnows had had enough.

In the real world, the SIF would have collapsed if the Law Society had not forced solicitors to make contributions.

The special general meeting that threw out the SIF was the largest seen at the Law Society in living memory.

The subsequent postal vote reflected the anti-SIF feeling in the profession.

Here is a true story about the SIF, which I think sums up what it represented to most solicitors.

Mr P, a sole practitioner, made only about 25,000 profit on a turnover of nearly 500,000.

His SIF demand, based on turnover, was several multiples of that.

He could not pay his premium, and so SIF referred him to the Law Society, which threatened to revoke his practising certificate if he did not pay.

Therefore, he sold his freehold office to pay the premium, and rented another.

Recently, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) commenced disciplinary proceedings against him for failure to pay the premium on time.

I represented him, and we challenged the matter on human rights grounds.

The OSS dropped the case 'for commercial expediency' and paid his costs.

Should the SIF be revived? I rest my case.

Neil Jopson, Buckingham Law Practice, Buckingham