Law Society pushes back as SRA weighs ban on ‘no win, no fee’ claims

Legal bodies warn that banning the phrase could reduce consumer protection

The Law Society has urged the Solicitors Regulation Authority not to ban solicitors from using the term no win, no fee, warning that such a move could divert consumers towards unregulated legal services.

The Society’s position forms part of its response to an SRA discussion paper examining how regulation of the high-volume consumer claims market could be improved. The regulator is considering a range of options following concerns about consumer outcomes in the sector.

Among the proposals floated by the SRA is whether to restrict, prevent or caveat the use of the phrase no win, no fee, or to ban it entirely. The regulator raised the issue after acknowledging failures in its oversight of Sheffield-based SSB Law, which entered administration in January 2024 owing funders more than two hundred million pounds.

The Law Society said the phrase no win, no fee could be misleading if not properly explained, but argued that an outright ban would be counterproductive. It warned that unregulated firms, including lead generators, marketing platforms and funders, frequently use the term in advertising and play a central role in initiating claims.

If solicitors were prohibited from using the phrase, the Society said they would be placed at a competitive disadvantage, while unregulated providers, who are not bound by professional standards or consumer protections, would continue to deploy it freely.

The Society concluded that a regulated and caveated use of the term was preferable to a ban and would better protect consumers. It added that solicitors offering genuine no win, no fee arrangements should be allowed to describe them as such. Firms whose retainers expose clients to additional liabilities should instead be required to use clearer wording explaining potential costs.

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers did not directly oppose a ban but said the SRA should focus on identifying firms that fail to comply with existing communication and client care standards. It called for further investigation into how consumers understand the term and whether standardised wording or information checklists could improve transparency.

APIL said the regulator should avoid imposing tougher rules across the entire high-volume claims sector in response to failures involving a small number of firms. It argued that where firms have effective processes in place, client needs are met and access to justice is maintained.

John McQuater, a member of APIL’s executive committee, said the SRA should take a targeted approach to identifying problem firms and intervening early, rather than penalising compliant practices.

Law Society president Mark Evans added that the regulator should first address internal regulatory failures identified by the Legal Services Board before introducing further reforms. He called for the development of standardised onboarding protocols requiring firms to provide clear information about costs, risks and funding arrangements in plain language.