The London-based law firm, Davenport Lyons, hit the headlines in late 2008 when it started sent letters in large volumes on behalf of clients who have alleged that their software, movies and music tracks were being file-shared.
According to the Consumers Association magazine, it welcomes the news that the SRA is investigating Davenport Lyons and believes that the law firm's conduct has been "bullying" and "excessive."
Deborah Prince, Which?'s head of legal affairs, said that the association is pleased to see some action at last from the SRA and hope the tide is finally turning in favour of consumers.
"We now want to see some decisive action to stop these bully-boy tactics. We hope the SRA's decision sends a message to other law firms that they cannot make a quick buck by accusing people of copyright infringements they haven't committed", she said.
Which? magazine says that it is continuing to hear – on an almost weekly basis – from distressed people who have received letters wrongly accusing them of illegal file sharing and demanding payment for their alleged crime.
Because of the scale of the problem – which is reported to have affected large numbers of internet users – it has produced advice for people in receipt of the law firm's letter on its website.
Davenport Lyons first hit the headlines in the second half of 2008 when large numbers of letters were sent out using a process called 'volume litigation', which accused internet users of filesharing specific products.
Volume litigation is a process whereby the same claims are made against a large number of defendants, using pro-forma letters and documents to reduce the costs of the litigation and maximise profitability.
Many recipients of the letters claimed they had not file-shared the products they were accused of uploading to the Internet.
In October 2008, Which? magazine was approach by Gill and Ken Murdoch, from Scotland, who had been accused of sharing the Atari's Race07 game, even though, as they told the magazine, they had never played a computer game in their lives.
The case was subsequently dropped, but Which? said at the time that it estimated that hundreds of others are in a similar situation.