Former clients risk confusion as MoJ admits it has no data on those affected by McClure’s collapse
The UK Government has acknowledged that it does not hold key information about the number of people impacted by the collapse of law firm WW&J McClure Ltd (McClure), even as it confirmed officials have discussed the fallout with regulators.
In a written response to questions from Liberal Democrat MP Martin Wrigley, Minister of State for Justice Sarah Sackman set out the official position on the regulatory regime governing legal services and the aftermath of McClure’s failure.
McClure, which entered administration in April 2021, left behind a significant number of former clients with unresolved legal matters involving family protection trusts and other estate planning arrangements, a situation the Government says it recognises has caused “financial loss, distress and uncertainty”.
However, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) stated it does not hold a count of individuals or households affected by the firm’s closure, and cannot provide precise figures for those who have experienced difficulty dealing with estate or trust matters as a result of the collapse.
Regulatory Responsibilities and Limits
The minister reiterated that the legal profession and its regulation operate independently of government, emphasising that responsibility for oversight lies with approved regulators such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), under the oversight of the Legal Services Board (LSB).
According to the MoJ, this independence means officials do not direct regulator activity, including how the SRA engages with former clients of McClure or handles ongoing professional conduct issues. Nonetheless, Ms Sackman confirmed that she has raised the impact of McClure’s collapse directly with the SRA.
The minister’s response made clear that operational matters such as the identification of regulatory warning signs before McClure’s insolvency sit with the independent SRA and are not held by the MoJ.
Successor Firm Compliance
When McClure went into administration, another firm, Jones Whyte, assumed certain assets and files from the collapsed business. According to official guidance, under the SRA’s regulatory framework, Jones Whyte is not assessed as a formal “successor practice”.
Nevertheless, the SRA has placed compliance obligations on the firm, which must ensure secure handling and storage of client papers and adequate arrangements for file distribution, and must advise affected clients about their options for retrieving documents or pursuing further action.
Regulatory Reform and Consumer Protection
Ms Sackman’s answer also highlighted ongoing work by the SRA to strengthen how regulatory risks to consumers are identified and addressed. As part of this, the SRA’s Corporate Strategy for 2023–26 sets out objectives to improve risk-based and proactive regulation, and recent business planning documents reference efforts to use intelligence and data more effectively to spot emerging issues.
These steps form part of a broader strategy by the SRA to enhance regulation in response to independent reviews of its oversight of other significant law firm failures.
Despite these changes, the Ministry of Justice stated it has no current plans to review the regulation of estate planning and trust-selling practices specifically, emphasising that the department’s focus remains on better enforcing the existing legal and regulatory framework rather than introducing new statutory controls.
Client Engagement and Independent Regulation
While Ms Sackman acknowledged concerns raised by former McClure clients, the Government drew a clear distinction between its own role and that of regulators. The MoJ does not collect or hold detailed records of individuals experiencing difficulty following law firm failures. Any such information is usually held by the regulators themselves or by the Legal Ombudsman, which deals with complaints about legal services providers.
The minister also noted that the SRA continues to meet with various stakeholders, including representatives of affected clients, but that these meetings are driven by the regulator’s own engagement priorities and not at the direction of the Government.