Jeremy Brooke’s referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal raises important questions not only for those directly involved in the collapse of SSB Law, but for the wider future of high-volume consumer claims litigation and the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s approach to enforcement.

Quick answer: The SSB Law fallout is likely to increase SRA scrutiny of high-volume consumer claims firms, particularly around client onboarding, funding arrangements, ATE insurance, supervision, financial resilience and whether clients were given clear information about cost risks before entering into litigation.

 The Solicitors Regulation Authority’s decision to prosecute former SSB Law chief executive Jeremy Brooke before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal is more than another regulatory development arising from the collapse of a high-volume claims firm. The allegations remain unproven, but the case provides a useful opportunity to consider how the SRA may now be approaching volume litigation, consumer risk, adverse costs exposure and the governance of firms operating at scale.

For firms operating in this space, the issue is not theoretical. An SRA investigation can quickly create commercial and reputational pressure, even before any allegation has been tested. In this article, I consider what the SSB Law fallout may mean for solicitors, claims firms, COLPs, COFAs and professional indemnity insurers, and how firms can protect their position while continuing to cooperate with the regulator.

The wider SSB story raises a practical question for solicitors working in claims management and other volume-driven practice areas. Should firms now expect more intensive SRA scrutiny of their business model, funding arrangements, client communications and financial resilience?

Some firms in the sector may already feel that the answer is - yes, particularly where they have seen more detailed information requests, greater scrutiny of introducer arrangements or more questions about the sustainability of volume litigation models.

The more difficult question is whether that caution is justified or whether, in seeking to avoid a repeat of SSB, over-anxious regulatory concern could produce very significant commercial consequences for legitimate businesses that have done nothing wrong.

From acting for solicitors and other regulated professionals facing SRA scrutiny, my experience is that the early investigation stage is often where the most important decisions are made. The practical problem for firms is not simply whether they have complied with their obligations, but whether they can evidence the governance, supervision and client communication systems sitting behind the relevant decisions.

The allegations against Jeremy Brooke

For context, the charges brought against Jeremy Brooke, which remain allegations unless and until determined by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, focus on three areas. The SRA alleges that:

• clients pursuing Court of Appeal litigation were not properly advised of adverse costs risks;
• misleading claim values were used in cavity wall insulation litigation; and
• serious financial difficulties within the firm were not reported to the regulator.

Importantly, these allegations go beyond simple errors of judgment. They centre on three recurring themes in SRA investigations:

• client communications and informed consent;
• the accuracy of information presented to courts and opponents; and
• governance, financial stability and regulatory reporting.

Unsurprisingly, those themes sit at the heart of the SRA’s Enforcement Strategy and correspond closely with areas where consumer harm can arise on a large scale.

What may be more significant than the allegations themselves is what they tell us about the regulator’s current priorities.

The regulator’s own conduct has also come under scrutiny

One of the more striking aspects of the SSB story is that scrutiny has not been directed solely at the firm.

The Legal Services Board’s independent review concluded that the SRA failed to act adequately on more than 100 reports concerning SSB between 2019 and 2024 and missed multiple opportunities to intervene earlier. The review found shortcomings in investigations, risk assessment and regulatory oversight. The criticism was particularly uncomfortable because the review suggested that the regulator itself had been too slow and insufficiently proactive.

From a regulatory perspective, this creates significant institutional pressure. When a regulator is criticised for failing to intervene soon enough, it may understandably feel pressure to intervene earlier in future cases. Whether intentionally or otherwise, the pressure can create a more cautious enforcement environment.

Has the SRA changed its approach to volume claims firms?

The SRA does not appear to have formally amended its Enforcement Strategy solely because of SSB, but it has clearly identified high-volume consumer claims as a distinct area of regulatory concern.

Amongst other measures, the SRA has published a dedicated high-volume consumer claims hot topic page, a warning notice on ‘no win, no fee’ and other fee arrangements in high-volume consumer claims, a high-volume consumer claims thematic review, and public statements about the SSB Group and Pure Legal cavity wall insulation investigations.

The materials do not amount to a new enforcement policy directed solely at claims firms, but they do show a regulator moving from case-specific investigation towards a more structured programme of supervisory and enforcement attention across the high-volume consumer claims market.

The SRA has also said, following the independent review into SSB, that the case led it to look at practices of other firms in the claims marketplace and that it has launched a significant programme of work to identify and tackle wider issues in the HVCC market.

This matters because the SRA’s published material refers not only to individual misconduct, but also to wider concerns about client acquisition, onboarding, funding arrangements, ATE insurance, supervision, financial resilience and whether consumers are being given clear and accurate information before they commit to claims. One of the more recent publications was the 9 July 2026 guidance on ‘Using or arranging Third Party Litigation Funding’.

 Likely SRA investigation themes

In that context, firms should treat SSB as part of a broader regulatory focus on operational systems and consumer protection in high-volume claims work. Increasingly, questions may be directed at themes such as:

• client acquisition methods;
• lead generation arrangements;
• outsourcing structures;
• data sourcing and consent;
• supervision of large-scale workflows;
• litigation funding arrangements;
• ATE insurance arrangements; and
• financial resilience.

Firms operating high-volume models should expect closer scrutiny in these areas.

What should a firm do as a first step?

For firms operating high-volume consumer claims models, a useful starting point is to test whether the firm can evidence, in one place, its approach to:

• client onboarding,
• adverse costs advice,
• ATE insurance,
• funding arrangements,
• introducer due diligence,
• supervision,
• file review,
• complaints handling;
• financial resilience; and
• escalation of regulatory concerns.

If the materials are incomplete, inconsistent, or difficult to locate, the firm may already be at a disadvantage if the SRA asks questions.

Are firms being unfairly caught in the net?

This is where the debate becomes more controversial. Critics argue that some SRA investigations can themselves create commercial harm. A lengthy investigation may affect:

• lender confidence;
• insurer appetite;
• relationships with litigation funders;
• recruitment;
• staff retention; and
• consumer confidence.

In a volume litigation practice, even rumours of regulatory concern can have significant consequences. Some firms therefore worry that the regulator may feel under pressure to take a firmer stance because of criticism it received over SSB and Axiom Ince.

The difficulty is that investigation is not punishment. The SRA would argue, with some force, that where large numbers of consumers may be affected, early intervention is necessary even if allegations are ultimately unproven. The challenge is achieving an appropriate balance between consumer protection and avoiding unnecessary commercial damage.

That balance is unlikely ever to satisfy everyone.

Implications for professional indemnity insurers

The insurance implications may be profound. The SSB collapse highlighted how multiple risks can converge:

• failed litigation strategies;
• questions regarding ATE cover;
• alleged inadequacies in client communication;
• large cohorts of affected clients; and
• potential professional negligence exposure.

Insurers are increasingly focused on precisely these issues. Many underwriters already ask detailed questions concerning:

• onboarding procedures;
• funding arrangements;
• marketing relationships;
• use of introducers;
• volume case management processes; and
• supervision systems.

It would be surprising if the SSB experience did not result in even greater scrutiny at renewal.

There is also the longer-term question of whether claims arising from collapsed high-volume firms may place pressure on the broader indemnity ecosystem and, indirectly, the Solicitors Indemnity Fund and successor arrangements designed to protect consumers.

What should firms do if the SRA starts investigating?

Firms should be careful about taking a purely reactive approach. In professional discipline work, I frequently see difficulties arise not from the original issue, but also:

• from the way the first regulatory response is framed,
• the documents selected for disclosure,
• the assumptions made before the firm has carried out its own fact-finding exercise.

The instinctive reaction of many solicitors is either to fight the regulator or to cooperate completely without obtaining advice. Both approaches can be dangerous. The reality is that firms must do both:

• cooperate fully with the regulator; and
• protect their own position.

These obligations are not mutually exclusive. A well-managed response typically includes the following:

1. Preserve evidence immediately

Firms should ensure that documents, communications, policies and file records are preserved. An inability to produce contemporaneous documentation frequently causes more problems than the underlying conduct itself.

2. Understand the true scope of the investigation

Many notification letters are intentionally broad.

In short, a firm should not assume that an SRA investigation is limited to the specific issue identified in the first letter. In high-volume claims work, the regulator may also look at systems, supervision, funding, client communications and whether the firm’s governance arrangements were adequate for the scale of the work being undertaken.

Before formulating a response, firms should understand precisely:

• what concerns have been raised;
• what period is under investigation;
• what information is sought; and
• whether the regulator is examining individual conduct, firm-wide systems or both.

3. Conduct an internal fact-finding exercise

Management should establish what happened before responding. A rushed response based on assumptions can create lasting difficulties if later evidence proves those assumptions wrong. Even if a comment was unintentionally misleading, the anomaly can provide the SRA with an opportunity to look more closely and justify further questions. Getting the response right from the outset, even if it takes a little longer, can avoid weeks or months of delay. A thorough, accurate and objective internal investigation can be the firm’s most valuable asset.

4. Demonstrate effective governance

The SRA frequently assesses how firms respond once risks are identified. A firm that takes good legal advice, promptly investigates concerns, improves controls and documents decisions is almost always in a stronger position than one that adopts a defensive stance.

5. Obtain specialist regulatory advice early

Many firms wait until disciplinary proceedings are threatened. The most important strategic decisions are usually made during the investigation stage, when information requests, interviews and self-reports are being managed.

Lessons for claims firms

One of the most important lessons from SSB is not that high-volume claims models are inherently problematic. Many firms successfully represent large numbers of consumers while maintaining excellent standards, but the lesson is that scale magnifies risk.

Processes that may work adequately for hundreds of cases can fail catastrophically when applied across tens of thousands. Regulators, insurers and funders now understand that reality more clearly than ever.

As a result, firms operating in consumer claims markets should expect greater scrutiny of governance, supervision, funding arrangements, ATE insurance, marketing, onboarding and client communications. The scrutiny may be uncomfortable, but it is unlikely to diminish.

Looking ahead

The prosecution of Jeremy Brooke will undoubtedly attract significant attention within the legal profession. Whatever the eventual outcome, the case is likely to become an important reference point for claims firms, insurers, litigation funders and regulatory lawyers alike.

The wider legacy of SSB may prove even more important. The legal market is witnessing a shift towards earlier intervention, greater scrutiny of business models and increased regulatory focus on systemic consumer risk. The key challenge for the SRA will be ensuring that legitimate firms are not unfairly damaged simply because they operate in sectors associated with previous failures.

The challenge for firms is equally clear: robust governance, clear client communications and early specialist advice are no longer optional. They are increasingly essential components of regulatory risk management.

For firms facing SRA investigations, the objective should not simply be to answer the regulator’s questions. It should be to understand the regulatory risk, preserve the evidence, protect clients, maintain commercial confidence and ensure that cooperation with the SRA does not inadvertently compromise the firm’s position.

Evan Wright is a partner and barrister in JMW’s Professional Regulation team. He currently acts for firms and individual lawyers in the HVCC market.