The collapse of SSB Law and the findings of the recent Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and Legal Services Board (LSB) reports represent one of the most significant moments of reckoning for the claimant sector in recent memory.
It is a sobering story, not just of a firm’s failure, but of the system’s failure to protect consumers when the warning lights were flashing red for years.
We have seen first-hand the impact of that failure, having acted for both litigation funders and individual clients left exposed in the aftermath of SSB’s collapse. For us, consumer protection is not just a principle: it’s the lens through which every funding decision should be made.
Timeline of missed opportunities
From 2019 onwards, reports began flooding in from consumers, other firms and even from SSB’s own staff. Allegations of cold-calling, forged documents, poor due diligence, and concerns over expert evidence were raised repeatedly.
By 2021, SSB was already on the SRA’s internal “watchlist.” Yet despite dozens of further reports, including evidence that the firm was underfunded, underinsured, and failing to protect clients from adverse costs, meaningful regulatory intervention did not arrive until late 2023, by which time SSB owed more than £200 million to funders and had left thousands of clients exposed.
When the SRA did finally act, it was too late. The firm entered administration in January 2024, leaving a trail of unpaid barristers, unpaid loans, and clients with unenforceable ATE insurance.
Systemic failures in oversight
The Carson McDowell review identified fundamental flaws in the SRA’s assessment process for handling reports. Staff were too often siloed, without access to the full picture of prior complaints.
The SRA’s three-stage Assessment Threshold Test, designed to determine whether to investigate a report, was applied mechanically and without context. As a result, many consumer complaints were dismissed as “service issues” rather than seen as part of a wider pattern of misconduct.
The report was blunt: “These various reports, if considered together on a cumulative basis, ought to have raised alarm bells for the SRA at a much earlier stage.”
The SRA’s own Operation Grouse, set up to monitor cavity wall insulation claims, failed to deliver the “higher level of understanding and scrutiny” that was expected. And despite written policies about considering client vulnerability, the review found “little evidence that this was taken into account in practice.”
Perhaps most troublingly, the review uncovered a “two-tier approach” with solicitors’ complaints handled with care and detail, while lay consumers were sometimes dismissed or even met with derision.
Consumer detriment in sharp relief
Behind the reports and timelines sit thousands of clients who genuinely believed they were protected. They were told that their claims were “risk-free,” that ATE insurance would cover any loss, and that discontinuing a case meant the end of the matter.
In reality, many were left facing adverse costs orders averaging tens of thousands of pounds, often without valid or responsive insurance cover.
The SSB collapse is not just a business failure, it’s a human one. Elderly and vulnerable clients, often with limited means, are now dealing with debt collectors and court orders they never expected.
That is the very definition of consumer detriment, and it is why this report matters.
Funding reform must start with responsibility
Litigation funding remains essential to access to justice. But as I said at the Legal Futures Conference earlier this month, “funding is not free money – it’s capital that comes with strings attached.”
Those strings can empower firms to deliver justice, or they can strangle them when oversight fails. The difference lies in how responsibly that funding is managed and monitored.
The SSB case shows the dangers of firms that are highly geared, using funding to sustain operating costs rather than advance client claims. It also highlights the need for rigorous due diligence on funders and robust ATE arrangements that genuinely protect clients.
Lessons for the regulator and the profession
The Carson McDowell report offers a roadmap for reform. The key recommendations include:
- Better information sharing and staff training within the SRA;
- A more “user-friendly” and inclusive process for client reports, particularly for vulnerable consumers;
- Improved financial analysis of firms to spot instability earlier; and
- Stronger oversight of file transfers when firms close.
But regulation alone is not enough. The legal profession must hold itself to higher standards, treating consumer protection not as a compliance box, but as a professional duty.
How we are helping
We are working actively to support those affected by the collapse:
- Assisting litigation funders to recover losses and assess the viability of future funding structures;
- Representing consumers facing adverse costs liabilities because of failed, discontinued or underinsured claims; and
- Advising insurers and stakeholders on strengthening due diligence and client protection frameworks.
Looking ahead
The SSB collapse should mark a turning point, not just for regulation, but for professional culture.
Firms must ensure that innovation in litigation funding is always matched by transparency and responsibility. Regulators must learn from past inaction and respond with decisiveness. And funders must remain partners in justice, not merely sources of capital.
If we can achieve that, the SSB story will serve not as a cautionary tale, but as a catalyst for reform.
Were you represented by SSB Law in relation to a cavity wall insulation claim on a ‘no win no fee’ and are now being pursued for legal court costs or other charges? Contact ours solicitors today.
