Victims of the collapsed law firm SSB Law have stepped up pressure on the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) to launch a wider review of high-volume consumer claims practices, arguing that the scandal highlights systemic risks in parts of the market. In calls reported on 28 October 2025 by Legal Futures, former clients said the failure of SSB Law was not a one-off and urged the regulator to strengthen oversight across similar operations. They want tighter safeguards for consumers, clearer rules on supervision and funding models, and quicker regulatory action when warning signs appear. The demands reflect growing concern that thousands of clients can be left in limbo when a high-volume firm fails, with unfinished cases, uncertainty over files, and limited routes to redress.
The SRA oversees solicitors and law firms in England and Wales. It sets standards, enforces rules, and can intervene in firms that pose risks. Victims now argue that the regulator must go further to address business models that rely on processing large numbers of low?value claims at scale, where a breakdown can affect many people at once.
Context and timing
The latest pressure on the SRA emerged on 28 October 2025, following reporting by Legal Futures. The intervention comes in the wake of SSB Law’s collapse, which left a significant volume of consumer claims unresolved. The dispute centres on the regulator’s approach to firms that handle large caseloads in areas such as housing disrepair, personal injury, consumer product claims and similar mass litigation.
Victims say the problems extend far beyond a single firm
Former clients affected by SSB Law’s collapse argue that regulators and policymakers should treat the episode as a warning about the broader risks in volume litigation. They say the issues do not relate only to one firm’s management, but to a model that depends on aggressive case acquisition, lean supervision structures, and complex funding chains. When those elements come under strain, the impact rapidly spreads.
Those raising concerns point to recurring patterns: large marketing drives, outsourced or semi-automated case handling, limited client updates, and sudden operational failures when cash flow tightens. They want the SRA to treat these as structural risks that merit a coordinated response, rather than as isolated incidents dealt with firm by firm.
SRA’s remit and the limits of consumer protection
The SRA has powers to set standards, investigate misconduct, and in extreme cases intervene into firms to protect clients and the public. It also oversees a compensation fund that can pay out in cases of dishonesty or failure to account for client money. However, that fund does not cover poor service or business collapse on its own, which often leaves clients relying on administrators, new firms, or the Legal Ombudsman for service-related complaints.
That regulatory framework creates gaps that become more visible when a high?volume firm fails. Clients can face delays retrieving files, uncertainty over who will take on their case, and potential loss of progress on claims. Critics say these outcomes show the need for preventive regulation aimed at firms with models that pose a heightened risk of large?scale consumer harm if they fail.
Why high?volume litigation can create systemic risk
Volume claims firms often run thousands of cases funded by conditional fee agreements and disbursement loans, with revenue realised only when cases settle. That model demands careful cash?flow management, reliable case progression, and strong supervision. Any disruption—whether in lead generation, funding costs, case selection, or court delays—can strain the business quickly. If the firm has thin margins and limited reserves, those pressures can tip into insolvency.
In addition, reliance on external lead generators, litigation funders and after?the?event insurance adds complexity. If any part of that chain stalls, the firm can struggle to move cases forward or to cover disbursements. For clients, the risk is concentrated: a single business failure can freeze thousands of claims at once, often with time limits approaching and evidence becoming harder to gather.
Previous collapses sharpen the debate
The collapse of SSB Law follows earlier failures in the consumer claims sector in recent years, which have also triggered debate about oversight and resilience. Administrations and closures in the wider claims environment—most notably the downfall of another mass claims group in 2021—disrupted many cases and highlighted how quickly a high?volume model can unravel. Those episodes led to calls for better stress testing and stronger supervision of firms that scale rapidly.
Critics point to recurring themes: optimistic valuations of work in progress, screening challenges that allow weak cases into the portfolio, and operational strain when marketing outpaces case-handling capacity. Against that backdrop, victims of SSB Law say it is time for the regulator to act on lessons that the sector has seen before.
What victims want the SRA to do now
Those affected by SSB Law’s collapse advocate a package of measures aimed at prevention and early warning. They want a thematic review of high?volume claims practices to map the risks across the market and identify firms that need closer attention. They also call for clearer rules on supervision ratios, file auditing, and the use of unregulated outsourcing or off?site support for legal work.
Victims also press for stronger financial oversight. They urge the SRA to examine funding structures, stress?test firms that depend on large volumes of contingent fees, and require credible wind?down plans for rapid transfers of files if a firm becomes distressed. They argue that earlier regulatory engagement could reduce client harm and prevent sudden collapses that leave thousands of cases in limbo.
Pressure for transparency on marketing and lead generation
A persistent concern in consumer claims lies in how firms source cases. Victims say aggressive marketing can create unrealistic expectations and drive unsustainable growth. They want the SRA to scrutinise lead?generation partnerships, ensure robust due diligence, and demand transparency about how firms vet potential claims before signing clients.
Clearer information for consumers also forms part of the wish list. Campaigners want firms to set out funding arrangements, likely timelines, risks, and the consequences if a firm fails. They argue that plain?English disclosures at the start would help clients make informed decisions and reduce confusion if cases transfer to new providers.
The role of other bodies: complaints, courts and the FCA
The legal redress system involves multiple bodies. The Legal Ombudsman handles complaints about service, while the courts control case progression and may set directions to protect parties if a firm collapses mid?litigation. In parallel, the Financial Conduct Authority regulates claims management companies, which often sit upstream in the case?acquisition chain before files reach solicitors.
Victims argue that coordination matters. They want the SRA to work closely with the Ombudsman, the FCA, and insolvency practitioners to streamline communications with affected clients and to speed up file transfers. They say a joint protocol for large?scale failures would reduce delays and confusion when a volume firm shuts its doors.
What the sector could expect if the SRA acts
If the SRA launches a thematic review, firms can expect requests for data on caseloads, supervision, client communications, funding, and wind?down planning. The regulator could follow up with targeted visits, guidance, or rule changes. The outcome might include stricter expectations on financial resilience, clearer boundaries on outsourcing, and specific triggers for early engagement with the SRA when risk indicators rise.
Law firms that already invest in robust supervision and financial controls would likely welcome clearer standards, arguing that stronger rules curb poor practices that distort the market. Others may warn that additional compliance costs could squeeze margins and restrict access to justice for low?value claims. The regulator would need to balance consumer protection with market sustainability.
Wrap-up
Pressure on the SRA after the collapse of SSB Law has opened a wider debate about how to police the risks of high?volume consumer litigation. Victims want early warnings, clearer rules, and faster action when firms falter. They argue that the costs of inaction fall on clients who face stalled cases and uncertain outcomes. A thematic review, backed by closer scrutiny of supervision, funding and lead generation, would signal a shift from case?by?case firefighting to structural prevention. If the regulator moves in that direction, firms may need to tighten controls and plan for orderly wind?downs. If it does not, calls for parliamentary scrutiny and cross?regulator coordination are likely to grow, as stakeholders seek a system that can handle scale without leaving consumers exposed when a big player fails.