Ombudsman stance plays into hands of the Co-op
If I had a pound for every client/customer debate I’d heard, I’d probably have… £10 or so.
Most of the time, I retreat before the argument gets going, ignoring this irrelevant and diversionary issue. Frankly, it matters not what the bill payer is called, just that they walk away (or more likely log off) from the encounter happy.
Chief legal ombudsman Adam Sampson believes that too many customers (his favoured term) come away from the legal process bemused, angry and out of pocket. This week’s Legal Ombudsman (LeO) report makes it clear that firms that continue to be unclear or opaque about costs will be driven out by new entrants.
I sometimes wonder where these errant firms are, given that every time I write about the LeO I’m met with a stack of emails from firms complaining about a misleading picture. There is barely a firm out there that doesn’t boast on its website about being ‘client-focused’ or some other nondescript marketing term.
But somebody must not be playing by the rules, given the 90,000 complaints that come in every year to the LeO, around a quarter of which are related to costs. Of course, every firm should heed the warnings to be upfront and transparent about costs. Customers are coming for legal advice at potentially the most vulnerable or significant moment in their life and they deserve the best possible service.
But there’s something distasteful about the timing of this report. Lawyers are no strangers to a bashing from the media, but this time there are vultures circling overhead looking for stragglers. The Legal Services Act has opened the market to those that promise lower (maybe even fixed) fees and reliable service. Before the report was even out I had a response in my inbox from a supermarket chain about to enter the market, gleefully telling how ‘the Legal Ombudsman’s approach reflects our own’.
Unwittingly perhaps, Sampson is starting to emerge as the champion of these new entrants and the scourge of the traditional firm. Alongside a clutch of unfortunate clients, news outlets were happy to quote that same supermarket throughout their coverage of the report. Who needs advertising when that kind of exposure is available?
Poor service and unaccountable spiraling fees are unacceptable at all times and have offered an open goal to big players coming into the market. But at times it feels as if the LeO has beaten the defence and laid that chance on a plate.
There is little, if any, acknowledgement of the fine service still provided by the majority of lawyers, or of the thousands of firms that have never received a complaint against them (90,000 is still a small percentage given the volume of legal work in this country). Customer service is always paramount, as is a responsive complaints procedure. It is right that breaches are investigated and publicised.
But the playing field feels uneven. Sampson says traditional firms are playing into the hands of the new entrants. But is his report not having the same effect?
Follow John on Twitter
Comments
".....Unwittingly perhaps,
".....Unwittingly perhaps, Sampson is starting to emerge as the champion of these new entrants and the scourge of the traditional firm..."
For the time being until he and the SRA have destroyed all the independent firms.
Then it will be interesting to see how ,much it costs to do litigation work in particular...
And forget trying to challenge that title 'indemnity' insurance that was designed never to pay out..
Sampson, Townsend and their
Sampson, Townsend and their like are corporatists, who believe that big is the only way for services to be "delivered". They are therefore setting out to achieve that aim. Small and independent must be destroyed in the world they want to create.
The fact that big and corporate doesn't actually produce good services (nice big translation contract for instance) is dismissed out of hand because they themselves are products of corporatism. And they're doing rather nicely out of it.
Nothing unwitting about it.
Nothing unwitting about it. When you read the report, it makes it clear where his loyalties lie. Anything that makes a consumer *think* they have got a better service is good in his eyes (irrespective of whether that is the case).
And I am sure we will see another "blog" post from Mr Sampson rebutting this (I know he has posted before in response to adverse comment from this very website).
For example, I can well imagine that new entrants will be attracted to the "Ryanair" model. I am certain that many of the clients and enquiries I receive would be sufficiently swayed by this.
i.e. "Will only £25 - drafted under the supervision of a fully qualified solicitor, expert in probate law! - and if you're a BBB Bank PLC account holder, we will give it to you for absolutely free!"
Only when you sign up do you realise that the fee does not include a whole host of services that can be marketed as "additional" but which in fact are realistically necessary, such as Legal Advice, Attesting the will, Storage, etc.
Unfortunately Mr Sampson's approach, particularly in his consumer guidance leaflet, advises consumers that they ought to be swayed by the headline price and whether or not it is fixed. What is (or appears to be) missing is the key question "are you getting what you think you are getting, and what you need to get?"
"Customer service is always paramount"
Therein lies the fallacy. In the context of being a solicitor, customer service is not always paramount, as a reading of the SRA Handbook will show you. A solicitor is an officer of the court which overrides (or, at least, qualifies) his duty to the best for his client; and he is subject to other ethical rules which may prevent him from accepting or implementing a client's instructions. It is not simply a case of receiving instructions and executing them unquestioningly.
Insofar as unexpected costs are concerned, let's look at a "customer" analogy. I put my car in for a service. I'm told it will probably costs about £100. I then get a call from the garage, telling me that more work is needed than was thought. It ends up costing £300. I feel angry with the garage, but the extent of the work could not be foreseen until they had a good look under the bonnet and established the precise nature of the problems which needed to be addressed. The client who finds that his legal bill is higher than had been suggested is in a similar situation: it cost more than he had hoped, because things turned out to me more complicated than was anticipated.
The truth is that any solicitor undertaking any piece of work (other than on a fixed-fee basis) can never predict the cost with any certainty. In most cases, the best advice a solicitor could give on costs would be "it will depend entirely upon how the other side to this transaction [or dispute] behaves, which is a matter beyond my control, but I will keep you informed as things develop".
On the client or customer debate, there is no debate. The SRA Handbook uses the word "client" throughout, for the obvious reason that those instructing solicitors are clients, not customers. For the Ombudsman to be using/pushing terminology which is inconsistent with the terminology used in the Handbook issued by the profession's regulator is poor.
The Ombudsman has also suggested that client care letters should include a section explaining why the client chose the solicitor. Aside from being a silly idea, it is not for the Ombudsman to prescribe the contents of the client care letters: that is the SRA's job. Solicitors are entitled to know both what the rules are and who is making them. The Ombudsman is not there to make the rules (or issues "ten-point checklists") and, in fairness to solicitors, he should remind himself of the limits of his statutory remit and observe those limits in future. If he has concerns about the adequacy of the rules (or believes that a "ten-point checklist" would be useful), he should inform the SRA.
It is a good point about
It is a good point about solicitors being officers of the court.
This now just a historical anachronism which should be abolished-it imposes duties which others do not have and for which solicitors are not properly recognised or compensated.
As we move to the ABS model, it should be the firm that has the duty to the court, not the individual, and the firm which has the right of appearance, with the consequent liabilities.
Inward Looking
What a backward and inward looking article.
You don't like criticism, you don't like transparency and accountability and you don't like change.
All I read on here is whinging about the SRA, the insurance industry and Ken Clarke.
Come on guys - pull your socks up
LeO
Kelly, you are so right. There's nothing quite like being told how to do what you have been trained to do by people who have never done what you do nor indeed trained to do it.
Its so easy to speak a load of biz talk, get a very large salary and not actually have to do anything other than tell people what to do.
What does what the LeO said actually mean?
What does it mean in practice?
LeO
Did anybody else notice that the “customer” that was wheeled out on BBC breakfast as an example of what a great service the LeO provide proceeded to give details of how her solicitor actually charged her for attending court appearances which she did not attend. I therefore assume the LeO reported this to the SRA because surely this is fraud, not simply a case of the lawyer not explaining their costs. The LeO might not be the regulator, but they do have a duty to report such practises to the relevant authorities, and unless they do, good lawyers (and the insurers) are going to pay the price and the real problems will be dealt with as issues of poor service instead of criminality.
Entirely agree! The fees
Entirely agree! The fees should be a percentage of the value-as used to be the case.
"Michael Welsh
"Michael Welsh CompareLegalCosts..."
Ha ha brilliant.
What about comprethelabotomycosts? Do you have a monopoly on that Mr. Welsh?
Love your ever assured servants at
Wewillwinyourcasesolongasitisnotdifficultlawplclimitedpartnershipregisteredinbviwhereyoucantcomplain.com
LeO found out that "poor
LeO found out that "poor service and unaccountable spiralling fees" was not just the domain of solicitors when the Co-op came under LeO's remit in 2010. From the outset, Eddie Ryan and his cohorts sought to keep out of the way of all of LeO's predecessors, arguing (rightly) that they had no jurisdiction over the Co-op. Only when LeO formed with the wider remit did the Co-op begrudgingly accede to their authority.
The start up of Co-op's legal services saw hundreds of complaints such as; missed court deadlines, claims being struck out, inactivity on files for months on end, settling claims at well below their value etc. Co-op's case handlers being swamped with work; unable to handle it within a decent timescale, to a professional standard or with any form of customer service.
All of these complaints dealt with by getting the chequebook out so as not to claim on the professional indemnity insurance or to fall into the hands of LeO. All problems handsomely paid off on only one condition, a confidentiality clause to gag the client from going public with their story. The Co-op tries everything to keep complaints out of the hands of LeO, but if you ask LeO, they will tell you that they have received and dealt with a number of complaints about all aspects of the Co-op's legal services'.
Co-op and all other new entrants are not immune to complaints, no matter how slick or glossy the promotional material.
90,000 or 900,000
90,000 complaints may just be a drop in the ocean to John Hyde but I should imagine each of those 90,000 clients felt they had a valid reason to complain. And, as they reckon that less than 10% of poorly served people actually ever bother complaining that makes 900,000 people unhappy with the service they received from members of the grubby legal profession.
don't like the "grubby legal
don't like the "grubby legal profession"? Simples! Don't use it.
There, easy isn't it? Now why don't you go off onto your own website and work your two readers into an anti-solicitor frenzy on there instead of posting with him and her on here?
[why oh why d