The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) had the information and opportunities it needed to take action on the PM Law Group long before it collapsed, a review has concluded. The review, conducted by the London office of US law firm Jenner & Block, found that the SRA failed to aggregate information about the group, which was made up of 12 law firms. The SRA has previously said a fraud of around £40m is suspected and its Compensation Fund is set to pay out £30m to former PM clients.
Failure to Aggregate Information
The review’s central finding was one of a failure to aggregate information. It explained that the SRA held more information about the PM Law Group than was ever drawn together into a single, coherent risk picture. This is similar to the SSB Group review, which found that the SRA failed to coherently draw together all the information which it held.
Related: Orwins makes two new acquisitions
In the period of the PM review – from January 2023 to February 2026 – the SRA conducted two forensic investigations into group firms, in 2023 and 2025, an anti-money laundering inspection and a visit as part of a thematic review into compliance officers. The SRA recorded PM Law as an accumulator firm in the first half of 2024, was profiled as ‘high risk’ in August 2024 and was discussed at a risk and intelligence network meeting the following month.
Complexity of the PM Law Group’s Structure
The complexity of the PM Law Group’s structure compounded the SRA’s failure to aggregate information. The group is made up of 12 connected practices, 11 of which were subject to the intervention. They are not arranged in a conventional corporate structure under a single parent entity, but rather as a group of associated firms directly or indirectly connected and ultimately owned by Donald Mackay and Simon Proddow.
Related: Gemstone Engagement Rings: A Unique and Meaningful Choice for Love
The review found that the SRA’s understanding of the group’s structure was incomplete throughout the period. SRA personnel did not fully understand how the entities related to one another, with the result that PM Law Limited was treated as an accumulator firm when it did not technically meet the definition, while the group as a whole – which in the review’s view did meet it – was not.
Response from the SRA
SRA chair Anna Bradley said: “The PM Law report makes for difficult reading. We are particularly sorry for the impact this has had on former clients of the firm and accept we should have done better by them.”
Related: iManage boosts AI for legal firms with Google Cloud
Chief executive Sarah Rapson said the report reinforced the need to reset the way the SRA regulated. Too often, action has been taken only after consumers have experienced harm.
Former clients of PM Law are still seeking compensation.