The Solicitors Regulation Authority has barred two former directors of collapsed claims firm SSB Law from working in the profession, after finding that they acted dishonestly and without integrity.
Wesley Bower, business development partner, and Steven Westwood, operations partner, have been found culpable for multiple conduct breaches, including failing to obtain insurance cover that would have protected clients from crippling costs bills.
Sheffield-based SSB went into administration last year owing £200 million, in circumstances that led to the regulator itself becoming the subject of fierce criticism. Clients who believed they were pursuing cavity wall insulation claims on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis were left on the hook for the other side’s costs when their cases failed. In decision notices published today, the SRA notes that ‘several’ clients have had charging orders placed on their homes - in one case for £74,500.
Bower and Westwood, neither of who is a solicitor, were directors and senior managers of SSB Group from 2019 until the firm’s demise. The pair were previously joint owners of a predecessor personal injury firm that used the same ‘no win no fee’ model.
The SRA identified ‘multiple, serious failings over an extended period of time’ by both men. These affected clients, the courts, the SRA ‘and the reputation of the legal profession at large’.
In some cases, SSB supposedly acted on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis but failed to obtain any after-the-event insurance cover. SSB ‘was not in a proper position’ to cover potential adverse costs in the event that these claims failed.
Read more
These were not system failures or mistakes, the regulator said, but ‘deliberate policy choices’ by SSB and its directors. Acting without an appropriate ATE policy was ‘reckless’ and led to a ‘clear risk of loss and harm’ to the client.
SSB initially obtained ATE policies (typically at indemnity levels of £25,000) that were ineffective, usually due to the risk of or actualised defendant costs exceeding this sum. Without top-up cover, this would invalidate these policies, negating any prospect of it being paid out upon the claim failing. New clients were not told of the limitations of these policies and the risk that they could be found personally liable.
In some cases, the directors were also found to have breached terms of ATE policies that related to SSB’s own conduct of claims, leading to insurers refusing to pay out. SSB’s failures here amounted to ‘deliberate policy decisions’ by the directors to breach or ignore those terms.
Other failures included not telling clients about adverse costs orders in a timely fashion and not obtaining client instructions on taking matters to appeal. In at least one case, SSB went against the client’s wishes and appealed anyway, hoping to use a positive judgment to continue other claims. That appeal failed and the client suffered further adverse costs.
Another SSB policy was to intentionally undervalue claims at below £10,000 to minimise the initial cost to the firm and ease its cash-flow problems. The court was thereby purposely misled and court fees were underpaid, the SRA said.
Bower and Westwood have both been made subject to Section 99 orders - a sanction for non-solicitors in alternative business structures - following findings of dishonesty, lack of integrity and multiple conduct breaches. This disqualifies them from being an employee, manager, head of legal practice, or head of finance and administration in an SRA-regulated law firm.
The SRA continues to investigate SSB and has pledged to take further action against solicitors and individuals where it finds evidence of misconduct.
