SRA Investigating Huge Legal Bills for Clients of Collapsed Firm SSB Law

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is currently investigating the aftermath of the collapse of SSB Law, a claims firm based in Sheffield. The firm went into administration earlier this year, leaving potentially thousands of clients facing substantial legal bills.

Many of the clients had made cavity wall claims through SSB Law and are now being pursued for wasted costs by defendant lawyers. The SRA is looking into whether SSB Law acted in compliance with professional standards and is inspecting client files and the firm’s systems and processes.

One of the key issues being investigated is why After the Event (ATE) insurance providers have not paid the defendants’ costs in these cases. The SRA is also questioning the role of ATE insurance providers and surveyors in these cases and is collaborating with the Financial Conduct Authority and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to understand any wider issues in the legal services market.

Clients who have concerns are advised to report them to the legal or financial ombudsman services. However, the SRA has indicated that unless there is evidence of dishonesty or mishandling of client money, the compensation fund may not be able to provide redress in this situation.

The investigation into SSB Law is expected to continue until autumn, and discussions with regulatory bodies about consumer protections around ATE insurance are ongoing. It is estimated that around 1,400 claimants, mostly in the north of England, may be facing unexpected costs as a result of the firm’s collapse.

The situation has caused significant distress for some clients, with one individual reportedly living in fear of bailiffs after receiving a £38,000 legal bill. Demands for repayment have been paused while the situation is clarified.

SSB Law went into administration owing more than £200 million, primarily to litigation funders, barrister chambers, medical reporting agencies, and claims management companies. The firm employed around 220 staff, all of whom were made redundant.

This article is now closed for comment, but the investigation and discussions surrounding the case are ongoing.