The former leader of collapsed firm SSB Law has been warned he will not get any further chances to answer to misconduct charges after failing for weeks to engage. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal heard today that Jeremy Brooke, admitted in 1998, has missed two deadlines for answering charges from the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Brooke did not appear at a case management hearing this morning in which the SRA explained the progress of the case so far, although it was explained that he had emailed this morning to state his commitment to engaging with the process in future. The regulator supported an extension to allow Brooke more time, particularly given the volume of the documents involved (one exhibit runs to 19,000 pages alone).
The tribunal agreed that Brooke should have until 4.30pm on 7 December to file an answer to the SRA’s stated case against him.
Panel chair Teresa Cullen added: ‘He [Brooke] should be in no doubt that we cannot allow this matter to be kicked into the long grass, and ultimately if he is unwilling or unable to participate and engage by filing a full answer, then alternative measures may have to be brought.’
Brooke was chief executive of the Sheffield-based claims firm SSB Law until it entered administration in 2024. At the time the firm had thousands of clients with ongoing claims, and since the closure some have come forward to say they have received letters from defendant insurers demanding that they pay back wasted costs.
The SRA alleges that from mid-2022 to January 2024, Brooke failed to ensure that clients who went to the Court of Appeal were told of the adverse costs risks. It is then alleged that, over a 15-month period, Brooke encouraged or allowed the issue of cavity wall insulation claims with a value stated as being up to £10,000 when neither he nor the firm knew what the values were. The SRA alleges that therefore he ought to have been aware that an employee would have to sign a statement of truth that would be misleading.
Brooke is also alleged to have failed to report to the SRA indicators of serious financial difficulty relating to the firm and that this presented significant ongoing prejudice to clients.
The allegations are subject to a hearing before the SDT and are unproven.
