Complaints figures merely prove how good solicitors are
You can come out now, it’s safe to look. Monday was judgment day, when the Legal Ombudsman would finally get its way and publish complaints data on solicitors.
And what do you know? The figures don’t look bad at all. In fact, in comparison to other professions, lawyers seem to be amongst the best behaved. In all, the ombudsman was required to make 922 decisions involving 772 firms from April to July. The vast majority had one single complaint against their name – and 400 of those were later found to be blameless.
Just one firm reached double figures for complaints received (and only just) and no firm faced anymore than five penalties. Even the outfit with the most complaints and remedies, national firm Lyons Davidson, had just five ‘ombudsman remedy requireds’.
Compared with other professions, this looks pretty good. On Tuesday the General Medical Council reported that more than 8,700 complaints were made about doctors in 2011. In the first half of 2012, the financial ombudsman received 135,170 complaints about banks and other institutions, of which 71% were upheld.
Barclays alone faced 23,703 complaints – 25 times more than were made about all law firms (albeit over a longer time). So why doesn’t this feel like a victory for the legal profession? Why does it feel like another stick with which to beat a legal profession so many already assume to be dodgy?
Again, it comes down to context. The general public understands the size of the Barclays operation and will consider their complaints figures accordingly. What else would you expect from such a banking giant? But what does the public know of Lyons Davidson? Do people realise that the 10 complaints came from a pool of more than 70,000 cases in some of the most contentious areas of law? To me, that looks pretty good.
The stats tell you everything and nothing. You’ll find out the mistake and the punishment, but without an idea of the scale of the firm, they’re useless – and offer no protection to the consumer. It’s even worse for firms which did nothing wrong but are on the list simply because of a complaint received.
Will the public acknowledge whether remedy was needed or simply take the ‘no smoke without fire’ approach and assume they are untrustworthy? Internet searches (probably the most common way of finding a firm) will always link one of these firms to complaints, no matter how unfounded that moan proved to be.
Complaints publishing was supposed to be an important tool in empowering the consumer, but it’s difficult to see how these tables are in the public interest. Instead they simply tarnish a profession that seems to be better than most at dealing with its customers.
Follow John on Twitter
Comments
Good Article John
Good Article John
Complaints
I agree with the writer,although I wouldn't be too happy with double figures. The bigger the organisation, the more likely you are to get offhand treatment,in my experience.
Joe Public loves stats
Numerous examples show (I offer school league tables as exhibit one) that Joe Public loves stats, and doesn't bother too much about the context. I myself am prone to perusing batting averages without worrying too much about whether the guy (or gal!) at the top had some easy wickets to play.
I'd guess that most people take a more nuanced approach when they are actually selecting a school, legal service provider or whatever. In the case of legal service providers, personal recommendation must still be the most important factor.
And good customer service is what promotes good recommendations.
complaints
On what basis does the ombudsman get the last say in these offerings? The data looks far worse than it really is and it will not be long before the gutter press start using this to sell their ink stained dead trees. The decision of the ombudsman to publish this data is knee jerk public pressure reactionism. large firms like the one named will be painted in a very poor light and smaller firms will start to lose work because of public perception. The fact is many of us deal with hundreds of clients a year and in any business if you can do that and receive a single complaint which is not even upheld then I would say you are doing very well. All the more well if you happen to be a sole practitioner. IMO only complaints judge extreme, negligent or resulting in serious consequences should be printed. The rest is rubbish. If this is to continue (which no doubt it is) why not have complaints against Ministers, Gov Departments, NHS staff and doctors, public services, PPP partnerships also printed on a name and shame basis. While we are at it why not the police, naming the officers with the most complaints having been made against them? I bet all of a sudden some jackpot will start talking about national security.... oooh and yes - traffic wardens, social workers, GP's, nurses, nursing homes... and why does the 'too good to be true' Ombudsman not publish details of the complaints made against them and their own staff????
(and before anyone starts claiming that I must be a disgruntled solicitor named on the list - as it happens I am not!)
Complaints
Oh how naive; this is about money! Investigating complaints costs money, but you can't stop people complaining. Making formal findings runs the risk of judicial review applications that also cost money. The only way to reduce the cost is to settle the complaints, minimising investigative costs and removing the risk of court proceedings. If you don't want your Firm on the list either settle with the Client before the Ombudsman gets involved, or accept the fudge that the Ombudsman's initial "investigation" suggests. Stand up for yourself and you are on the list, who cares which column the number is in! After all would you like your daughter to date a man who had been accused or rape once, let alone 5 or 6 times, even if he was acquitted everytime!
If you want to protect consumers then just publish upheld complaints and have a minimum threshold before publication.
LeO and Complaints
The LCS and LeO talk about being Open and Fair. They mention that it is important that consumers have the data to be able to choose.
Why then did the LeO in its last report laid before Parliament not provide any detail of the 18 complaints about its service?
Under what power is this data released? The LCS is a statutory body. The Legal Services Act sets out its powers. s150 allows for reports to be published but that doesn't allow for data to be published which is, in effect, meaningless. Why is not the actual award sum published? Why is it not indicated if the award has been accepted? Why is a proper report not published as other Ombudsman services seem to manage eg ASA, Ombudsman for PSNI etc.
I wonder if the Information Commissioner would be happy about how the LeO/LCS has handled this data?
Solicitor Complaints
I am a retired local government lawyer who now is a volunteer adviser at a church community advice centre in a very deprived area of a large midlands city.
The elderly, very poor and desperate folk who come in have a very negative impression of solicitors, often based on past experience, and to them, expensive bills.,
living on £60 to £100 a week.
In some cases, the standard of work has to say the least been slipshod and hardly professional.
Worse, the folk have found the solicitors (and their subordinate staff who they thought were qualified solicitors .. and on telephone enquiry turn out invariably to be legal secreatries) had not explained matters in a way they could understand., either orally or in writing.
So NOT all is rosy is it?
Ivor
Ivor - I suspect the lawyers your "very poor" people you refer to are probably dealing with are also very poor legal aid lawyers whose hourly rates and income are also so low they sadly cannot retire on no doubt a generous local government pension like you.
Shoddy
The problem is that neither the SRA nor the Law Society are concerned with improving the quality of legal advice dispensed by solicitors. They're more concerned with "equality and diversity". So far as I know, neither the SRA nor the Society has ever carried out a "swoop" to check the quality of advice which is being dispensed up and down the country.
equality and diversity
I was interviewed by one of their equality and diversity staff. He didn't have a clue. One of our partners is Northern Irish. He'll be European then said the interviewer. Confused I asked why. Well Ireland falls within Europe. I tried to point out that Northern Ireland forms part of the UK. There followed lots of babble from the interviewr who clearly didn't grasp the fact that Northern Ireland exists. As usual they haven't got their own house in order.
comparision with financial complaints.
I do not agree with the article that the figures suggest that the legal profession is 'better than most' at dealing with its customers. One important point I would make about the financial complaints mentioned above and the 2012 first half 71% uphold rate is that this figure is completely distorted because of the huge number of PPI complaints presently. That prcentage is nowhere near the real uphold rate for all financial products over a longer period, so the camparision is meaningless.
So the PPI complaints weren't
So the PPI complaints weren't "real" complaints? Really?
And if so, isn't that the point many people have been trying to make with regard to complaints against solicitors?
Indeed
Indeed. This doesn't suit Kelly's agenda as the volume PPI complaints are not real and distort the numbers but the volume complaints about file downloading etc are a great example of the profession being awash with vexatious litigation.
Hoisted by your own petard Kelly I think you'll find that is called.
PPI
Looks like you are trying to misrepresent my views - yet again.
Of course many PPI transactions have resulted in genuine complaints. (although quite a few are bogus also) but these need to be viewed in the correct context. Each PPI case represents a transaction which probably took a few minutes over the phone. Millions of these often unsuitable products were sold and hence why the 'uphold rate' of 71% is not a true reflection of the outcome of financial complaints as a whole over a reasonable period. The reason that there are so many also is because of the huge publicity campaigns and CMCs which have encouraged people to complain and that process is easy.
The point is that because dozens of millions of financial/insurance products are sold every year, John Hyde should not be making a comparision with complaints made about the legal profession. Complaints are bound to be far fewer as there are simply less instructions. Granted - there will be many divorces and conveyencing instructions but the sheer number of financial products sold will be many multiples of this.
Also Mr Hyde lists the number of legal complaints which required a decision (922 - which will be far less than the actual number of complaints received by LeO) yet mentions the total number of complaints about other professions (ie. which will include all cases, whether a decision will be/was made or not) So this could also be misleading to some and a distortion of the true picture.
To demonstrate the point about PPI being a 'special case', lets compare it with motor insurance. At least 10 million people every year take out this compulsory insurance yet look at the figures on the FOS website and you will see that only a few thousand people per year complain about it.
Surely you can see the points I am making here. Or am I debating with a bunch of sulky kids?
Motor insurance
You're right to say that there is no much point comparing complaints data from various professions. I don't see the LEO data as proving how good solicitors are, not least because I attach no weight to the LEO's conclusions regarding each complaint.
Given that motor insurance is compulsory, there is not much scope for complaint as far as that product goes. However, BTE insurance is typically sold as a component of the motor insurance policy, even if the policyholder does not want BTE cover. It's interesting to note that a firm which does a lot of work under BTE policies, Lyons Davidson, tops the list of LEO complaints. Of course, the LEO data are so vague that we cannot tell whether the complaints made against Lyons Davidson relate to BTE work; but, if they do, it might be said that that is a result of the potential mis-selling of BTE cover in the first place.