Skip to main content

Law Firms Fume at Being Identified as 'Uninsurable'

By
Late on Friday the Law Society Gazette published an article entitled ‘Mass Cull on the High Street as 136 firms closed’ It’s opening paragraph stated ‘The Solicitors Regulation Authority confirmed today that 136 firms were forced to close because they could not secure professional indemnity insurance’ 

The headline and wording has now been somewhat softened, possibly in attempt to appease some of those firms who are annoyed that the article implied that that the firms listed were forced to close down due to being unable to obtain insurance.  

Comments quickly sprung up accusing the article of being misleading. One commenter stated  ‘Grants was an organised closure with full run off agreed and paid and an organised closure. This had nothing to do with the SRA. I would say that this firm accepted the position and has organised a successful closure, not because of the inability to obtain insurance but because of legal aid cuts’ 

Grants on their own website state: ‘Please note: Our firm has been wrongly included in lists of practices that were not offered terms for Professional Indemnity Insurance, thus suggesting this as the reason for our closure.  This is abjectly not the case.  Grants Solicitors LLP were offered terms from our existing broker and one other, but Members chose to close the practice of their own volition.  We will be taking this up with the Solicitors Regulation Authority as they were well aware of the facts but disappointingly have failed to indicate this in their widespread communications.’ 

One of the commenters, Ian Keith Nelson said ‘I am furious. I notified the SRA last year that I was retiring and as a result I would not be renewing my licence to practice as a sole practitioner however my firm of Nelson Nichols still gets included in a list of firms that could not get SI cover. As usual, the SRA has decided that every firm that has closed has been forced to do so. Are solicitors  not allowed to retire without being accused of being incapable of running their business.’ 

It is probable that a good number of firms had either already made arrangements or ceased trading and entered into some form of Insolvency. The absence of interventions would also indicate that this is the case.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Argie Bargie over Home Information Packs

By
In response to a question from Conservative MP David Amess on what methodology would be used to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the Home Information Pack programme, Communities and Local Government Minister Ian Austin was involved in heated argument. The wording of the debate ( reported in Hansard ) makes interesting reading, so I thought I would share it with you : Mr. David Amess (Southend, West) (Con): What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement. Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement. Mr. David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): What methodology his Department plans to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the home information pack programme; and if he will make a statement. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local...
Post a Comment
Read more

Paperwork is not a shield: Why your SRA aml audit demands more than just a dusty manual

By
The Solicitors Regulation Authority continues its aggressive crackdown on financial crime with a recent fine issued against Whiteheads Solicitors (Staffordshire) Ltd . This decision serves as a stark reminder that the regulator is looking far beyond simple paperwork during an SRA aml audit . The firm was fined 2,584 GBP plus 600 GBP in costs following an investigation into its compliance with the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017. While the firm had a firm-wide risk assessment and general policies in place, the SRA identified critical failures at the matter level. Key compliance failures included: Failure to conduct adequate client and matter risk assessments . The SRA found a consistent pattern where the firm failed to sufficiently assess client matter risk levels as required by Regulation 28. Inadequate scrutiny of source of funds . In one specific property transaction, the firm failed to properly investigate the origin of funds provided by ...
Post a Comment
Read more

FCA AML Audit: The SRA Is Out, the FCA Is In

By
For years, law firms prepared for AML scrutiny with one regulator in mind: the SRA. That era is over. The UK Government has confirmed a fundamental shift in supervision. AML and counter-terrorist financing oversight is moving from the SRA to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). This is not a cosmetic change. It is a full regulatory reset. If your firm is still thinking in terms of an internal review, an FCA AML audit will feel very different, financially, operationally, and reputationally. What Makes an FCA AML Audit Different The SRA regulates professional standards. The FCA enforces financial crime controls. That distinction matters. An FCA AML audit is not designed to guide or educate. It is designed to assess risk to the financial system and determine whether enforcement action is required. This is precisely why firms can no longer rely on internal reviews alone. An FCA AML audit will expect to see independent challenge, most ...
Post a Comment
Read more