Law firms must tell clients how to complain, says LSB
Lawyers must provide clear information to clients about how they can complain about the service they receive, the Legal Services Board said today.
Noting ‘a perception of poor complaints handling by [legal] regulators and the individuals and entities that they regulate,’ the LSB said that firms must make it clear how clients can complain to the firm, and if they are unhappy with the firm’s response, how they can take their complaint to the Legal Ombudsman.
The requirements come into force when the Legal Ombudsman opens in the autumn.
The LSB said it is currently working with the legal regulators to ‘ensure that consumer expectations on complaints handling and signposting requirements are met’. The regulators are required by the LSB to monitor, enforce and improve upon these requirements.
LSB chair David Edmonds said: ‘Improving complaints handling has been one of the key drivers of the reforms. It is essential that consumers have the information they need to identify whether they have a right to take their complaint to the Legal Ombudsman, and if so how to do it.
‘The launch of the Legal Ombudsman, underpinned by action to improve firms’ own handling of complaints and learn the lessons from them, should give consumers greater confidence in the speed and fairness of dispute resolution and so finally resolve an issue which has troubled the reputation of the sector for some time.’
The LSB said that while the creation of the Legal Ombudsman will address many concerns over complaints handling, there ‘still appear to be a number of areas for improvement within first-tier complaints handling’.
The LSB wrote to legal regulators and stakeholders last November outlining its proposals. The LSB has asked the legal regulators to develop complaints handling action plans by the time the Legal Ombudsman becomes operational.
The LSB will issue guidance to regulators on effective complaints handling and signposting.
Comments
Complaints - AMR
AMR I agree completely. Complaining is the new favoured hobby of our lords and masters - provided its not to do with them.
A suggestion to the regulators. It would be easy to tell the clients to whom they can complain - if only it didn't appear to change every other month (OK I'm exaggerating but you know what I mean).
Why don't they just give us some basic principles to stick to, and leave us to it: For example, we already do most of the following and really what more than this do we need to act properly.
1) uphold the rule of law/justice
2) look after your clients interests
3) don't do anything that you would be embarrassed to explain to a judge!
Note to the SRA - you would have paid about £50k to a consultant to come up with that. get my email address from the Gazette if you like and send me a cheque - £25k will do nicely!
Complaints
Did no-one from the LSB bother reading rule 2.05 of the Code of Conduct?
How to complain
If more members of the profession were to get it right in the first place then there would be less of a need for the LSB et al. And your insurance premiums and other costs may fall as a result.
Just take a look at the "in practise" section of the Gazette every week to see how many so called "professionals" are being "mentioned".
I recently saw on a forum someone ask the question "can we charge for sending a client care letter". Another posting implied that a firm had in its client care letter " we will not pay interest for sums under £75".
I have spent the last thirty one years in legal finance and administration, the last eleven freelance. It still amazes me to see the standards of the profession despite the fact that communication of requirements is so much easier in the technological age.
Time for some to put away the Blackberrys etc and start looking in the mirror to see what stares back and what they are doing to the profession, once such a respected cornerstone of every High Street, and now so often spoken of with the same tones used towards estate agents, bankers and disgraced politicians.
BASIC PRINCIPLES
In reply to Paul, this is what is happening next year with Outcomes Focused Regulation.
No matter what you do complaints will never go away, especially in the current climate where some people complain in the hope that their bill will be reduced or written off. Firms must ensure that they have excellent client care processes in place, and when a complaint is received, whether valid or otherwise, it is handled in the correct way; a vexacious complaint taken to the LCS can attract compensation payments if it is not handled in accordance with a firm's internal complaints procedure.
I see nothing wrong with being open with clients about a firm's complaints procedure; if there is a need to complain it can be dealt with efficiently and speedily in a consistent manner, and if there isn't clients will see they are dealing with a firm that is open and transparent.
With ABSs around the corner, law firms not willing to change and become more receptive to client care matters will not be attractive propositions for external funders, etc; customer care and reputational protection is everything with retailers, insurers, etc, and firms without such thoughts will not survive.
Whether we like it or not times are changing and we need to move with them if we are to survive!
Complaints..
IN reply to Brian,
I totally agree Brian. Clients need full information - not only about how to complain but also about what we can and can't do for them. Also about their own responsibilities and what they need to do to help us help them.
Until we have proper communication, there is always the chance of an unnecessary falling out.
What the regulators need to be aware of, though, is that complaints will always happen now and again. We should differentiate between a complaint based on negligence or incompetence - which should be dealt with very seriously indeed, and a complaint because someone "isn't happy". You could have done everything in your power but some people are never happy - and this needs to be recognised.
On the other points - I also agree. Until we give the people what they want, how they want it, we are going to have difficulties. Fixed fees are the future for most types of work.
I for one welcome that. I HATE telling a client we've gone past an estimate.
As a profession we seem to spend lots of time on this website agonising about the clients vs customers debate. I think the difference is this. We know we have a fiduciary duty and we act and are regulated accordingly, but the client just wants a solution and most don't care. I expect most of our clients would class themselves as "customers" for high street work anyway, regardless of the extra duties we have towards them.
LSB 'snipe' at Complaints Handling Bodies
Let me first declare an interest. I am a former Solicitor Board Member of the Legal Complaints Service.
Mr Edmonds notes 'a poor perception of legal complaints handling'. Welll Mr Edmonds, can I suggest that you listen a little more carefully. During LCS's somewhat short existence, the standard of complaints handling improved immeasurably due the excellent efforts on the part of the staff of the LCS and its Executive Team. This was a point even acknowledged by someone who was no great friend of the LCS - Zahida Mansoor - the Legal Services Commissioner and former Legal Services Ombudsman.
Perceptions of consumers are always subjective of course. But feedback from users of the LCS generally felt they had received a good service (even if they did not suceed in their complaint) and found the service fair, transparent and equitable.
If the Office for Legal Complaints achieves anything like the recent performance of the LCS it will be a good start. But personally, while it is trying to put clean water between itself and the past, I believe that is a false dawn that it may one day come to regret. Yes, of course mistakes have been made in the past. But that was a long time ago now. Give credit where credit is due. There are bad apples in every barrel. But let's not succumb to the easy redtop criticism that all lawyers are grasping useless parasites.
Give us some credit for the fact that a happy client is one who will come back again and again. It's in no ones interest to set out to provide an unsatisfactory service.
Isn't it awful, Jennie, when
Isn't it awful, Jennie, when you think you've done a good job for someone but they then complain!
Its even worse to have that whinge upheld by a third party who finds you forgot some entirely trivial and irrelevant point and are therefore "guilty" and should pay money to the "aggrieved" person.
In short, welcome to the world you helped create.
Agree Annonymous 09.38 For
Agree Annonymous 09.38
For years (as a family) we were informed by acting solicitors in family court case, Redcar & Cleveland Social Services & Guardian Ad Litem could call my Grandson whatever name they wanted for Applications, Evidence, Judgements Full Care Order it did not help when we applied for appeal London Court of Appeal, where we applied in my Grandsons Birth Certified name and were turned down in a False name that had been used throughout a name my Grandson was not and had not never been known by or registered as. Under 1989 Childrens Act Effect of Care Order
(7) While a Care Order is in force with respect to a child, no person may
a) Cause the child to be known by a new Surname The Full Care Order was in a False name as in
R*** B***M******* his birth registered name was R***J***B**** His name was changed back illegally
abducted from his family, and adopted illegally from the highest court in the land to every complaint
authority in existance everyone has swept this illegality under the carpet, English justice, the best in the world, for who, legal making money, but finally the Gravy Train has stopped