Written by “No win, no fee” can open the door to justice for people who could not otherwise afford litigation. But the phrase can also conceal real financial risk. Conditional fee agreements, after-the-event insurance and compensation deductions must be explained clearly, or clients may discover too late that “no win, no fee” did not mean no risk.
Publication snapshot
- “No win, no fee” is a marketing phrase, not a complete explanation of litigation risk.
- Conditional fee agreements can improve access to justice, but clients need clear advice on costs, deductions and exit risk.
- ATE insurance may protect against adverse costs, but only if the policy terms are met and the cover is adequate.
- The collapse of SSB Law has exposed how some clients can face serious financial exposure despite believing they were protected.
- The reform issue is transparency: clients should understand the risk before they sign, not after the case fails.
Why “no win, no fee” matters
“No win, no fee” agreements have long been marketed as a route to justice for people who cannot afford to pay solicitors privately. Properly used, they can allow individuals to bring claims that would otherwise be financially impossible.
The difficulty is that the phrase can create a false sense of safety. Many clients hear “no win, no fee” and assume they cannot be left with legal bills. In reality, the position depends on the conditional fee agreement, the after-the-event insurance policy, the conduct of the case, the timing of withdrawal, the terms of settlement and the deductions from compensation.
Recent reporting around SSB Law and cavity wall insulation litigation has shown how damaging the misunderstanding can be. Some former clients believed they were protected, only to face substantial demands after claims failed or insurance did not respond as expected.
The promise and the reality
A conditional fee agreement, or CFA, usually means the solicitor’s payment depends on the outcome. If the case succeeds, the solicitor may recover base costs and a success fee. If the case fails, the solicitor may not charge their own fees, depending on the agreement.
That is only part of the picture. Litigation may also carry the risk of paying the other side’s costs. That risk is often managed through after-the-event insurance, usually known as ATE insurance. The client may be told that the policy protects them if the claim fails.
The reality depends on the documents. Insurance may be conditional. Cover may be refused if the client does not comply with policy terms, if the claim is discontinued in certain circumstances, if prospects change, or if the insurer considers that policy conditions have not been met.
A funding arrangement under which the solicitor’s fees may depend on the case outcome.
A much broader promise, which may be untrue unless adverse costs, insurance, disbursements, termination and deductions are fully explained.
The hidden cost traps
The first risk is discontinuance. A client who abandons a claim part-way through may discover that the funding arrangement does not protect them in the way they expected. The solicitor may claim fees, the opponent may seek costs, or the insurer may dispute cover.
The second risk is deductions from compensation. A successful claimant may still lose a significant part of their damages to success fees, ATE premiums, unrecovered costs or other agreed deductions. A case can be “won” while the client receives far less than expected.
The third risk is unclear responsibility for disbursements. Expert reports, court fees, medical records, counsel’s fees and other expenses may need separate treatment. Clients should know whether these are covered, deferred, insured, recoverable or personally payable.
How the risk can emerge
-
1
The client is attracted by a simple “no win, no fee” message.
-
2
The CFA and ATE policy contain conditions the client does not fully understand.
-
3
The case weakens, is discontinued, fails, or the insurer refuses cover.
-
4
The client faces deductions, adverse costs or demands they did not expect.
ATE insurance is not a magic shield
After-the-event insurance can be essential in a CFA case. It may protect the client against the risk of paying the opponent’s costs if the claim fails. It can make litigation possible where the client would otherwise be unable to accept the adverse-costs risk.
But ATE insurance is a contract. It has terms, exclusions, notification requirements and conditions. The client needs to know what is covered, what is not covered, when cover can be withdrawn or refused, and whether any premium is payable from damages if the case succeeds.
The key practical question is whether the client has been given a clear explanation in writing. It is not enough for a client to be reassured in general terms that insurance exists. They need to understand when the insurer may not pay.
Marketing and client recruitment concerns
The SRA has warned firms about misleading marketing and recruitment practices. The concern is that some consumers may be drawn into litigation by simplified advertising, third-party lead generation, cold-contact methods or unclear claims about risk.
Lead generation is not automatically improper. Firms may use legitimate marketing and referral arrangements. The problem arises where contact is intrusive, consent is unclear, risks are understated, or the firm fails to supervise the third parties helping to recruit clients.
A law firm cannot outsource ethical responsibility. If third-party marketing creates misleading expectations, the firm still needs to ensure that the client receives accurate, balanced and understandable information before entering into a retainer.
Funding arrangements help people bring claims they could not otherwise afford.
Marketing oversells safety, hides cost exposure or recruits clients without informed consent.
What consumers should ask before signing
Anyone considering a “no win, no fee” agreement should slow the process down. A legitimate firm should be willing to explain the risks in plain language and give the client time to read the documents.
Questions to ask
- What exactly will I pay if I lose?
- What exactly will be deducted if I win?
- What happens if I withdraw or reject advice to settle?
- What costs are covered by ATE insurance?
- When can the insurer refuse or withdraw cover?
- What disbursements could I personally owe?
Documents to read
- The conditional fee agreement.
- The client care letter and terms of business.
- The ATE insurance policy and schedule.
- Any damages deduction or success-fee explanation.
- Any cancellation, withdrawal or termination clause.
- Any referral or claims-management information.
The client should also ask for worked examples. It is much easier to understand the risk if the solicitor shows what happens if the claim fails, settles early, succeeds modestly, or is discontinued.
A system in need of clearer safeguards
The problem is not the existence of “no win, no fee” arrangements. Without CFAs and ATE insurance, many people would be shut out of litigation entirely. The problem is opacity.
Reform should focus on making the risk understandable before the client signs. Consumers need plain-language explanations, stronger supervision of third-party recruitment, clearer costs warnings and better visibility over deductions from damages.
Consumer safeguards
- Mandatory plain-language cost-risk summaries before signature.
- Worked examples showing likely deductions and loss scenarios.
- Clear warnings about discontinuance, insurer refusal and adverse costs.
- Cooling-off periods where clients are recruited through third-party marketing.
Regulatory safeguards
- Stronger oversight of claims-management and lead-generation arrangements.
- Clear accountability where firms benefit from misleading marketing.
- Targeted enforcement against risk-free advertising that is not risk-free.
- Better consumer guidance on CFAs, ATE insurance and compensation deductions.
Selected references
BBC News: reporting on the collapse of SSB Law and clients facing substantial bills.
The Times: reporting on cavity wall insulation litigation and “no win, no fee” risks.
Solicitors Regulation Authority: warning notice on marketing legal services to the public.
Legal Futures: reporting on SRA investigations into volume litigation firms.
Solicitors Regulation Authority: consumer guide on “no win, no fee” agreements.
Practical conclusion
“No win, no fee” can be a valuable route to justice. But it should never be sold as a simple promise that litigation carries no financial danger. The client needs to understand the CFA, the insurance, the deductions, the exit risk and the circumstances in which protection may fail.
The lesson from recent failures is not that consumers should avoid every CFA. It is that consumers should not sign one without proper explanation. A fair system requires access to justice, but it also requires informed consent.