Complaints data naming law firms goes live today

One more humiliation for the profession.

Would there be a similar hanging out of dirty washing for Members of Parliament?

This is all the dispiriting since with modern technology the kicking of the profession can be all the more efficient

Like with the failure of the Law Society to challenge the FSA on its assertions regarding mortgage fraud where was the high profile opposition to this action by the ombudsman?

I would be helpful if the anons who are so opposed to this list, make it clear that their firms are not on the list.

Although generally publication will keep us all on our toes, the limited data published can be misleading.

We had two cases go to Ombudsman in the period.

In one no remedy was required because our position which we had maintained throughout was fully accepted and vindicated. In a second case our client alleged that we failed to progress and delayed his case-we did not. However, we did offer £50 for getting his mother's date of birth wrong (based on the information he provided). He refused this and the case rumbled through and the ombudsman 's remedy was that our £50 offer was sufficient. So now we have a complaint published as "failure to progress/delay-remedy £0-£299"

Super.

We too had a mostly spurious complaint that had one small element of truth in it, which we accepted and offered £50 to the client to resolve. He also fought it. The Ombudsman agreed that our offer was acceptable and no further intervention was required. We too are now on the list. This makes little sense in my opinion, as the only intervention required by the Ombudsman was to tell the complainant that we were right all along...

Can I just ask the Law Society if CQS is the way forward why did I not have to get off the first page of LeO's published complaints list to find a CQS accredited firm who guess what had a complaint upheld against them for conveyancing??

So what is the point? Self-justification is about the size of it - nothing more - other than of course lets kick the profession in the nether-regions AGAIN!! - apart from having to have an internal complaints procedure and apart from having to advise clients how to complain about you BEFORE you do any work for them - why then oh why does LeO accept "complaints" which have side-stepped the internal complaints procedure in the first place - and the point is - there isnt one!!!!!

The LS is actually finished isn't it?

The demoralisation of the profession, to which it has contributed in a large measure, is complete.

"Time to die"- (Bladerunner-Ridley Scott).

I see no naming and shaming here.

Where the shame should be (and undoubtedly will be as this farcial exercise backfires) is on the face of Adam Sampson for allowing this meaningless data to be published.

Epic fail.

The list seems to be on this page.

http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/ombudsman-decision-data/ombudsman-decision-data.aspx

Perhaps those listed who feel 'harrassed and distressed' by being named could get together and petition the Law Society to take legal action to close down the Legal Ombudsman website?

Being serious for a moment if I was a solicitor listed I would not lose any sleep. At first glance it is not particularly meaningful to anyone.

When I started out in 1970 as a young lad I used to wake up and really look forward to going to work. Thank you SRA for destroying the profession for everyone. If I didn't have to spend my time complying with endless pointless compliance I would be able to give my clients the service I want to.

Apologies for spelling errors in previous post... just cross

Very funny!!!!! - unless you're on the receiving end.

To ensure fairness, perhaps the legal profession's representative body should set up its own league table where law firms are able to lodge all the positive feedback they receive from clients, I suspect most firms would show in excess of 90% being Excellent or Good!

hi to everyone in the trenches. I do have a solution.

1) stop giving a toss. this can only hurt us if we care.

I always have, but i've decided things are now so skewed that there is no way i'm going to let any future complaints get to me. I do the best I can and if that's not good enough for our new perfect world, then so be it.

2) those of us looking to set up on our own should just set up unregulated or with another regulator.

3) for the firms that are already running I propose this solution:
first - change to ABS status.
second - all partners renounce their status as solicitors but stay on as directors and keep an employed solicitor on strength to use their practising certificate to hang the ABS on. and PAY THEM accordingly.

best to all.

Your name will also go on ze list...

Of the total decisions 395 or 43% involved no penalty. If this is a reliable average, and it was quite a large sample, the profession has to suffer wasted time, expense and worry in dealing with complaints 43% of which are unjustified.

The real scandal is that an innocent firm still has to pay the Ombudsman's fee for investigating. In what other walk of life would that be tolerated.

Surely where 43% of complaints lead to no sanction the complainant should be required to pay a fee which they would get back if they are successful. Only solicitors who suffer a penalty should have to pay a fee. Those 43% of firms should be rightly aggrieved from having to pay a fee quite apart from appearing on the list.

The fact that 43% suffer no penalty surely suggests that the Ombudsman's department is poor at weeding out unmeritorious claims at an early stage. Still if the solicitor has got to pay a fee anyway, why bother?

Roll on retirement from our once proud and respected profession.

I really do find these blogs highly entertaining both for the wit of those who post on them and the shared sense of righteous grievance shared by other solicitors. I agree the SRA is damaging the profession but the rot started with the LSA2007.

Experience has taught me that the best way to avoid complaints is to adopt the AAA approach thus

1. Adhere slavishly to the guidance of the SRA and document eveything - it is after all for your own good really

2. Accept that even when you are 100 % perfect in both the advice you give, the result you obtain and the boxes you've correctly ticked, that all of the foregoing effort will only reduce the risk of complaint and not eliminate it entirely and now for the golden rule

3.Avoid the obsessive nutters out there - you know the ones - they've tried acting for themselves, have four lever arch files of information all in various colours of highlighter pen and spend til 2 am researching the law of google and refuse to accept your advice when it conflicts with the advice they want to hear. Such people will never be content so refer them to your competitors instead, or better still the LSC.

We are not yet on the list but if we do ever appear I wouldn't mind paying a fee for a hyperlink to our website - now that would be good advertising.

Have you tried logging your complaint on the Ombudsmen from Hell website?

Richard

These two points from your post:

1)'The real scandal is that an innocent firm still has to pay the Ombudsman's fee for investigating. In what other walk of life would that be tolerated.

Surely where 43% of complaints lead to no sanction the complainant should be required to pay a fee which they would get back if they are successful'

2)'The fact that 43% suffer no penalty surely suggests that the Ombudsman's department is poor at weeding out unmeritorious claims at an early stage'.

Concerning point one, there are other professions/sectors where the firm receiving the complaint has to pay a fee, even though the complaint is not upheld. The financial service industry has an ombudsman (FOS) where the firms pay regardless of the outcome. I accept there is an argument to say that clients should pay for failed complaints but there are many reasons why that would be a bad idea.
Not least, such a policy would hardly be consistent with being an accessible complaint handling service.

I think clearly vexatious complaints should not be charged to law firms however and as far as I am aware in financial services complaints, firms do not pay for such cases. That might be the same policy of the Legal Ombudsman too.

Point 2 - I happen to agree with the sentiments and I think there should be a filter system to chuck out the no hope cases early on. Mind you - not sure you will get much support from other solicitors. Some time ago I suggested that the judiciary should take steps to kick out hopeless and vexatious court claims at an early stage but everyone disagreed with me on here and cited 'due process' or something like that. Now, why would solicitors support 'weeding out' vexatious complaints about them - but not vexatious claims made by their own clients against the opposing side in a court case? I think we know the answer to that!

Because I wrote JR Pre Action Protocol letter the incorrect data to be published about my firm has not been.
Be a lawyer and write a JR letter.
With any luck Law Society might help.

To all those on the list "take heart" - you are in good company I might be wrong but I believe I have just spotted Law Society President's firm on the list..

18 September 2012

In my opinion the system of "naming and shaming" is anathema to proper legal process.

If the Courts worked like this we would say it was undemocratic.

Nobody has been arrested or cautioned by the police, so why should anyone be "named and shamed" at all?

I think that we have become totally undemocratic in this once great democracy.

I hope that all professional councils take note - the HPC is a case in point where people are "named and shamed" as having complaints made against them, and then finally when they come to the tribunal of the regulator it is publicly recorded.

I think all of this is wrong.

After all, if a person is struck off, then they cannot practise. But why does this have to be publicly proclaimed on a website?

Is this not a breach of Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act and the privacy codes?

I am alarmed.

Rosemary Cantwell

Me

I am sure you have made this point before but I am still struggling to understand how legal principles should be relevant to the majority of decisions made by LeO. Perhaps you can give some examples where LeO has blatantly ignored relevant case law which has been relevant to a decision.

On the other hand I would suggest that a knowledge of regulations, codes of practice an objective understanding of good legal practice and what is fair and common sense will be far more relevant.

Looking at the main areas of complaint - these are delays, failure to carry out instructions, communication failures and issues surrounding excessive costs and explaining costs.

The LeO when dealing with complaints about law firms will take the law into account - where it is relevant. However, you seem to think that because the complaints concern law firms and solicitors, that legal principles (rather than straight forward common sense) should be the overiding consideration in the majority of their decision making. It does not. You really do not need a High Court judge to conclude that a law firm has repeatedly ignored requests to send a client a file.

LeO is not bound by case law but cannot go behind the decision of a judge. The courts have a role - the LeO has quite separate role and remit. You seem to think the LeO should operate differently from the many other successful ombudsman schemes. Perhaps you can explain why you appear to think that.

I am the first to support any attempt to throw out vexatious complaints at the first opportunity. In my view, ombudsman schemes could do alot better at tackling this problem. Doing this in a way which is shown to be fair to all is a challenge but nevertheless, efforts should be made in this area. Pandering to vexatious ligitants erodes confidence by firms in the LeO.

Having said that, reading some of the posts here I go back to an earlier point I made. The same solicitors here who complain and dismiss frivolous complaints about them, no doubt will also hold the view that it is right under our legal system for a litigant to insist that his/her meritless and frivolous claim should go all the way to the trial.

For example, how is it that a client who lays waste to the courts through nonsense litigation for years has(according to most contributors here) a right to his 'day in court' but as soon as that is over and he complains about you - he is an 'obsessive nutter' all of a sudden?.

Tell me - how do you guys reconcile these conflicting viewpoints?

Dear Kelly,

With all due respect, the point of upset here is the publication of complaints..."the naming and shaming" not the principles of law etc.
We all deal with complaints, difficult clients, regulations...doing our best, if a complaint arises then we deal with it and we accept the outcomes whether we like it or not ....but how does the LoE thinks it would assist in publishing nearly 800 firms names on a naughty list every 3 months??
If I was a client looking for a law firm, I would have serious issues trusting any firm whatsoever. I will assume that they are all unreliable, overcharging fraudsters.
We are complaining about the demise the LoE and SRA is placing the entire profession.
We are expected to act with the highest integrity and professionalism, paying the highest insurance premiums to protect clients against any mistakes; YET our regulators treats solicitors like scum walking the earth...exposing each issue and non-issue to the public and in so doing destroying the profession without blinking an eyelid.
It feels like they are trying to extinct the legal profession from solicitors as they now have a hand in the pot of gold with banks and large commercial businesses. Solicitors have now simply become a nuisance for them, a thorn in the flesh.
Imagine having a name and shame list for doctors...they will simply strike!