Williams: SRA is rapidly becoming a failing regulator
Accountability for the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) failures in its supervision of SSB Law “must go further”, the group representing its former clients has said.
There have also been calls for resignations at the top of the regulator, while the person who helped a whistleblower pass their concerns to the SRA has spoken out about the experience.
As we reported extensively [1] yesterday, a review commissioned by the Legal Services Board (LSB) concluded that the SRA “missed opportunities” to step in at the Sheffield-based law firm much earlier than it did in October 2023.
The oversight regulator is now to take enforcement action in the form of a public censure of the SRA and imposing performance targets.
The SRA has apologised but chair Anna Bradley insisted that resignations would not follow.
The SSB Law Victims Support Group backed the LSB’s decision to take action, saying the review confirmed what victims have been saying for years, namely that the SRA had failed to protect consumers.
Spokeswoman Debra Sofia Magdalene said: “The LSB’s censure of the SRA is a formal warning, not real accountability. It recognises failure but doesn’t repair the damage or deliver justice for victims.
“Thousands of families have suffered because regulators acted too slowly. What’s needed now is genuine reform, faster intervention, and independent oversight to make sure promises of change are kept.”
The group is now calling for “a comprehensive redress plan for all victims affected by SSB Law’s negligence”, “clear accountability for those who profited while consumers suffered” and a cross-agency inquiry into how regulatory, financial and government oversight “repeatedly failed to prevent this crisis”.
Ms Magdalene added: “We thank the Legal Services Board for recognising the human cost of these regulatory failures and for formally acknowledging the testimony of the victims’ group.
“But the harm caused runs deep – lives have been shattered, health has suffered, and families are still living with fear and debt. This can’t be solved with performance targets alone. We need a clear path to justice.”
Tony Williams, who served on the SRA board until 2022, said in the wake of last year’s LSB report [2] on the SRA’s handling of Axiom Ince that either Ms Bradley or chief executive Paul Philip should resign.
Instead, Mr Philip is now retiring and Ms Bradley had her term extended.
The one-time managing partner of Clifford Chance and long-time law firm consultant said: “Now the chair insists she must stay. No one has been fired or disciplined but some will get more training.
“Instead of getting its act together, the SRA seems to be focusing on issues that are irrelevant to client protection.
“It saddens me to say that the SRA is rapidly becoming a failing regulator. The non-executive board members seen unwilling or unable to perform their oversight role.
“It is now down to the LSB to demand action to correct what are clearly now systemic failures at the SRA. Unfortunately I fear that yet again my comments will fall on deaf ears.”
Sarah Mumford, a solicitor and risk management consultant who has worked in compliance roles at several major law firms, said: “If half the time and resources pursuing paper transgressions had gone into Axiom Ince and SSB, we wouldn’t be in this sorry mess.
“The discredited chair and CEO must apologise and go, and the SRA board need to assert themselves before more irreparable harm is done to the profession.”
Meanwhile, Leila Chaudry, who runs Legal Compliance Consultants, has revealed that she worked with the whistleblower in reporting their concerns about SSB to the SRA. This led to the second forensic investigation, when the regulator finally realised what was happening.
The whistleblower wanted advice on how to raise their concerns safely and was anxious about possible repercussions from the firm.
Ms Chaudry said she advised them on a pro-bono basis as she “immediately saw that this was going to be another case like Axiom”.
Her first contact with the SRA was on 26 September 2023, submitting a detailed report highlighting 11 serious issues of concern, including a funding exposure exceeding £150m which was in default, court fees being used to fund business operations rather than pursue clients’ claims, and large dividends paid to directors against projected profits.
Ms Chaudry said she had to chase with SRA before it finally acknowledged her report on 5 October. She provided further information the following day, confirming that litigation funders were transferring files to other firms, and on 10 October advised that winding-up petitions had been issued by third parties, including a barristers’ chambers.
The SRA told her on 17 October that the matter had been referred to a forensic investigation officer and she heard nothing more.
Ms Chaudry said: “The SSB case shows what happens when early warnings aren’t connected quickly enough. Independent whistleblowing support gave this individual a voice, and the report demonstrates why regulators must be ready to act decisively when those warnings come.”
Finally, in a blog [3], Brian Rogers, regulatory director in the Access Group’s legal division, argued that the SSB case was not an isolated failure. “It’s symptomatic of structural weaknesses in how legal services regulation operates.”
He said: “When a regulator creates a monitoring mechanism but doesn’t integrate it effectively, knows about risks but doesn’t act on patterns, places evidential burdens on vulnerable consumers, accepts reassurances at face value despite contradictory evidence, and allows questionable practices to continue even when concerns are raised internally, then the regulatory system itself is broken.”
He said the LSB, Parliament and the profession had to ask whether the current regulatory model could be fixed “or does it need rebuilding from the ground up?”
Mr Rogers concluded: “Thousands of SSB clients – many vulnerable – were let down. The review makes clear this wasn’t inevitable. The warning signs were there. The tools existed. The information was available. The SRA simply failed to act.”