SRA ‘No Win, No Fee’ Clampdown: Latest Update for Law Firm Marketing

Why the SRA is focusing on ‘no win, no fee’

The term “no win” has become shorthand in consumer-facing legal services. However, the SRA’s concern is not with win no fee agreements themselves, but with how they are described, framed, and sometimes oversimplified in marketing.

The update builds on the SRA’s wider discussion paper on consumer protection and transparency in legal services, and aligns closely with expectations set by the Legal Services Board. The regulator is particularly focused on whether consumers are making informed decisions, or whether marketing gives a misleading impression that bringing a claim is risk-free.

This scrutiny also reflects wider regulatory pressure across the claims sector, including the role of claims management companies regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

Clear, accurate and not misleading: The core rule

At the heart of the update is Paragraph 8.6 of the SRA Code of Conduct: marketing communications must be clear, accurate, and not misleading.

The SRA makes it explicit that if firms use the phrase “win no fee” or similar language, they must explain clearly and prominently the circumstances in which a client may still be liable for:

• Legal costs
• Disbursements
• Insurance premiums
• Cancellation fees
• Any other potential costs, even where the claim is unsuccessful

This information must not be buried in small print or tucked away in terms and conditions. The regulator is clear: transparency must come before the client signs a conditional fee agreement or other funding arrangement.

Explaining costs before the agreement is signed

The SRA stresses that all information about the terms of your agreement must be provided before the client enters into it. While firms can use multiple channels, verbal explanations, written materials, and online resources, the information must be complete, accessible and understandable.

Crucially, firms must also check that clients have understood what they have been told and provide opportunities for clarification. This goes beyond simply sending documents. It places responsibility squarely on law firms to ensure comprehension, not just disclosure.

For firms using win no fee arrangements, this includes explaining:

• When success fees may be payable
• How those fees are calculated
• The difference between a conditional fee agreement and a damage based agreement
• What happens if a claim is discontinued or fails

Complaints information must be clear and repeated

Paragraph 8.3 is also emphasised in the update. Clients must be informed, in writing and at the outset, about:

• Their right to complain
• How to make a complaint
• When the issue can be escalated

This information should be reiterated where appropriate, particularly in longer-running matters or where issues arise during the retainer.

From a marketing and onboarding perspective, this means complaint information should not live solely in engagement letters. Firms need to think about how it is communicated consistently across the client journey.

Avoiding unrealistic expectations in marketing

One of the most significant warnings in the update relates to tone and language.

The SRA is explicit that firms must avoid language or testimonials that could create unrealistic expectations about:

• The likelihood that a claim is successful
• The speed or simplicity of the process
• The financial risks or benefits involved

Marketing must not exaggerate the benefits of win no fee agreements, or downplay the reality that clients may still face costs.

This is particularly relevant for high volume consumer claims, where simplified messaging has historically been used to drive conversions. The regulator’s position is clear that commercial pressure does not justify misleading marketing.

Comparisons and alternative funding options

Paragraph 8.8 addresses another common marketing pitfall, which are comparisons.

Where firms compare win no fee funding with alternative ways of bringing a claim, those comparisons must be accurate and not misleading. This includes explaining:

• Other funding options
• Where free advice may be available
• Whether there is a self-help route
• Access to an ombudsman scheme

This requirement mirrors the Claims Management Fees rules, reinforcing that consumers should be aware of all realistic options, not just those that generate revenue for the firm.

High-pressure sales tactics are prohibited

The update also restates a firm prohibition on high-pressure sales techniques. Practices such as:

• Cold calling
• Unsolicited approaches
• Aggressive follow-up communications

are not permitted. This applies not only to law firms themselves, but also to third parties acting on their behalf.

Given the historic overlap between law firms and claims management companies, this is an area where compliance failures can quickly escalate into enforcement action.

Monitoring marketing and third parties

Finally, the SRA makes clear that responsibility cannot be outsourced.

Law firms must have robust procedures in place to monitor and review all marketing activities, including those carried out by introducers, lead generators and agents. Regular staff training and clear internal guidance are essential to ensure everyone understands what the regulator expects.

For firms operating at scale in the volume consumer claims market, this means marketing compliance needs to sit alongside file audits and financial controls, not as an afterthought.

What law firms should do now

This update does not ban no win fee arrangements. Instead, it raises the bar on how they are explained and promoted.

Law firms should now:

• Audit all marketing materials using the term no win, no fee
• Review website content, PPC ads and testimonials
• Ensure explanations of legal costs and success fees are prominent
• Reassess third-party introducer arrangements
• Train marketing and intake teams on the new expectations

The direction of travel is clear. Transparency is no longer just good practice; it is a regulatory requirement.

For firms that get this right, compliant marketing can still be persuasive. For those that don’t, the risk is not just reputational damage, but regulatory action from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) itself.