Law Society dismisses ‘nonsensical’ third-party redress plans
The Law Society has dismissed as ‘nonsensical’ a suggestion that solicitors should have to provide redress to third parties to whom they owe no professional duty.
The Legal Services Consumer Panel’s proposal to create a general right for third parties – those who are not a lawyer’s client – to complain to the Legal Ombudsman was published in a discussion paper last week. The panel said the right should apply except where it would ‘impair the proper pursuit and administration of justice’.
Responding to a consultation on the LeO’s complaints scheme, the panel said current rules are ‘too crude’ and prevent legitimate complaints from third parties. It suggested a right of redress should be available, for example to parties affected by conveyancing delays, beneficiaries under a defective will, victims and witnesses in criminal cases and those ‘hounded’ by lawyers on behalf of corporate clients. Its paper states that lack of access to redress creates weak incentives for fair dealing and ethical behaviour, limits opportunities to learn lessons from complaints and frustrates government policy to promote alternative dispute resolution.
A third-party right of redress, it says, would bring the LeO into line with other sectors, such as financial services and utilities.
However, a Law Society spokesman said: ‘We are very sceptical that it is appropriate for LeO’s powers to be widened in this way. Subject to duties to the court, lawyers owe their main duties to their clients and putting solicitors at risk of having to provide redress to third parties to whom they owe no duty would be nonsensical.’
Chancery Lane accepted that the LeO should continue to be available in cases where solicitors owe a duty of care to third parties, for example, beneficiaries of a will, but said there should be no general rule.
Solicitors’ relationships with third parties are fully dealt with in the code of conduct and breaches can be dealt with by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the spokesman said.
Comments
Complaints against opponents Lawyers
What do you do when you are a litigant in person and opponent's team of QCs and top city firms behave unprofessionally in court and lie tot he Judge. Judges listens to them instead to the litigant in person.
Who would you complain to against the opponent's lawyers.
This service is lacking and it should be considered.
You either:- a) accept that
You either:-
I am a lawyer, and I represent people in court. It is not uncommon for my opponent to say things I do not like, or even things that I think are untrue (I would not go so far as to call them 'lies'). What I do is I tell the judge "Excuse me sir / Your Honour / My Lord, I think my learned friend is mistaken / has overstepped the mark / has drawn an impermissible conclusion here - he states that it is proven that the letter of the 15th July was sent, but your honour will recall that this has been denied vehemently by the Defendant, whose evidence has not been challenged on that point". What I don't do is cry, jump up and complain, convince myself that there is a conspiracy involving the local authority, the masons, the judge, whoever, set up a website, complain to the Law Society / Bar Council / Judicial Complaints Office.
Not a question of crying
Dear DomcCoop it is easy for you say all that because you said you are a lawyer. Of course the Judges will believe you. I think you have failed to read what I have said that even if litigant in person tries to explain to the Judge he does not want to know.
So don't sit there and tell me not to cry or jump. There is no justice in the British courts. As the judiciary is on the side of the large organisations.
There has to be a system where you can lodge complaints against these solicitors and barristers who have LIED in courts. They should be done for perjury.
If someone has lied in court,
If someone has lied in court, report them to the police for perjury or inform the judge.
It's a serious crime and almost always ends in imprisonment for the offender.
But no one will do that, of course, because there is no perjury and no lie as the lawyers are simply representing their client's case and someone who doesn't understand the difference between that and them giving evidence under oath won't be able to understand the fundamentals of why they lost their case anyway; much easier to blame it on conspiracies and the lawyers.
LSCP proposals that Legal Ombudsman service available to 3rd par
The consmumer panel comprises 7 well meaning individuals with no experience of legal practice. One might draw the conclusion from their latest ruminations that they probably don't understand the basics of the English legal system. Lawyers are presently governed by the same rules of criminal law, contract law & tort as other businesses. They are also subject to more onerous rules. Some are officers of the Court with corresponding obligations. All are subject to professional codes of practice. All are subject to their clients rights to complain to the Legal Ombudsman Service, whether or not the source of the complaint would be actionable through the Courts, or even the subject of a valid claim of professional misconduct.
Most lay clients consult lawyers concerning matters which are by their nature stressful & often traumatic. Whether winding up an estate of a deceased relative, divorcing, litigating; even moving house is regularly reported to be amongst life's most stressful activities. I have no research other than my own experience, but believe that at least half of all litigants find their experience in the Courts unsatisfying.
Why did the panel not extend its proposals further? Why not make the judiciary, and even the court ushers subject to the Ombudsmans jurisdiction?
I am disappointed that the Legal Services Board saw fit to publish a patently flawed proposal. If the Government were serious about cutting red tape it might start by dismantling parts of the current regulatory system which is intent on imposing greater regulation whilst appearing to have little understanding of the overall structure of the English legal system.
And as a footnote, don't lawyers have basic rights too?
Redress already exists
The Consumer Panel doesn't seem to realise that their proposals would lead to duplication.
The Code of Conduct already includes an obligation to treat third parties fairly. Breach is a disciplinary matter for the SRA as regulator.
There is then the very important issue of client confidentiality. It would be nonsense for that confidentiality to be threatened by third party complaints. The effect would be disproportionate. It is not uncommon for a client to instruct solicitors to do things that others might not like.
This is all going too far and further than any other business seems to be expected to put up with. Have the LSB and their sub-divisions not got enough to do? The time and money that would be wasted by this issue would be immense.
The consumer panel have
The consumer panel have actually proposed a fundamental change in the law. Solicitors would owe a duty of care to everyone who might be affected by their actions eg. dissatisfied estate agents who don't get paid as quickly as they would like because a defective title has to be sorted out. My view is that something as fundamental as this can only be enacted by Parliament, or gradually by the courts. It does beg the question - why should this huge extension of liabilities only apply to lawyers, and not to other professionals?
Completely agree - indeed I
Completely agree - indeed I think it would be prima facie ultra vires the Legal Services Act 2007 for the Ombudsman, by way of "scheme rules", to provide for itself jurisdiction which would have the effect you mention.
Section 128(4)(d) of the act gives the Lord Chancellor the power to add anybody to the class of persons entitled to complain. If such an order is made, then the Scheme Rules apply to set detailed limitations.
But the whole purpose of the sections is to provide redress for "acts or omissions" by an authorised person. One suspects that the vast majority of all complaints relate to "omissions"
That then leads to an interesting metaphysical question as to what is an "omission"? Could the local farmer complain to the Legal Ombudsman about the fact that I "omitted" to have three eggs this morning for breakfast, hence causing him financial loss (because egg sales are down)? That is clearly an omission.
But the obvious interpretation of the expression "act or omission" in the context of that Part of the Act is that is relates to omissions to do that which ought to have been done. And it seems to me that omitting to do something which the law does not require one to do, can not be an "act or omission" within the meaning of the Part.
Therefore:-
PS Also, on the subject of vires, the Consumer Panel, is there to represent the interests of "consumers". The expression "consumers" is actually defined in the Act to mean:-
Persons:-
(a) who use, have used or are or may be contemplating using, services within subsection (2),
(b) who have rights or interests which are derived from, or are otherwise attributable to, the use of such services by other persons, or
(c) who have rights or interests which may be adversely affected by the use of such services by persons acting on their behalf or in a fiduciary capacity in relation to them;
Can't see how these random third parties fall within this definition, and therefore what business it is of the Consumer Panel to spend our money in protecting their so-called "interests"
Thanks DC for that cogent
Thanks DC for that cogent analysis. Given the number of curtain twitching busybodies whose only interest in life is seeking to regulate us - I anticipate the next step will be a demand for regulations on how and when lawyers have sex, with compensation to dissatisfied parties.
Can not complain to....
can not complain to SRA as suggested by somebody. The whole problem is that if their own solicitors and QCs are behaving unprofessionally in court who do you complain to?
As SRA just ignore your complains as their own team appear to have immunity from any complaints.
Anothe angle
So if I represent a client in a litigation matter and the other side is also represented, can I advise my client to complain about the solicitor on the other side to the LSO? Would make an interesting tactical move, although no doubt I would then get a complaint about me for advising my client to complain about the other side's solicitor.
Oppressive and Meritless claims
As the Law Society say in the article, breaches of the SRA code regarding relations with third parties can be punished. To their credit the SRA have taken enforcement action against some offenders, mainly for bullying and intimidation of thousands of members of the general public in the file sharing cases (ACS Law etc etc).
Some time ago on this blog I highlighed the plight of numerous libel defendants pursued by one law firm. In that case, large sums of money were extracted from unrepresented defendants for nothing more than a few trivial comments posted on a financial bulletin board. None of these people knew anything about libel or could afford representation or even initial legal advice. The majority went to court (as LiPs) and fought the claims and won. (there were 30 claims in all) The judge called some of the claims 'nonsense' and the law firm concerned were slated for numerous protocol failings. Their client was fee exempt and this law firm sponsored these numerous worthless claims against hard working people at a huge cost to the taxpayer.
These people won but were left out of pocket and barely recovered their costs and in many cases their lives were turned upside down.
So, what can they do? O.K - I hear complaints are registered with the SRA who may take enforcement action concerning what must be clear cut breaches of the code of practice.
But will these people who have had their lives disrupted be compensated by the SRA ? Unlikely as I do not think the SRA make awards.
The LeO do however and if the proposals allow people affected by oppressive, clearly meritless and wasteful actions then I am all for it.
Domcoop and others will come out with their usual predictable stuff. The fact of the matter is, as another commentator recently said here, many lawyers seem to think the profession is set up purely for their benefit and therefore will disagree.
But is it really 'nonsensical' for these people to be allowed to obtain redress for being victims of nonsensical claims brought by a nonsensical law firm?
You go out and tell members of the public the story and ask them what they think. I suspect the vast majority of right thinking people would fully support the proposals to enable the victims to seek full redress from these fools.
Can the site managers please
Can the site managers please fix the paragraph problem! Long posts become unreadable!
Client Confidentiality - Right to Privacy !!!
Whilst it is worrying this has even been raised and clearly some fundamentals have not been understood by the Ombudsman or understood and a blatant attempt by the Ombudsman at scope creep.
The Law Society Response is spot on.
The Consumer Panel appear to be setting themselves up to be for the red tape challenge. Are they adding value or expense.
Who do they think is paying for all this - At the end of the day the consumer.
As a life long Conservative I am finding it hard to believe that they are not doing more to stamp out this red tape which is causing consumer detriment.
Where does this sit with client confidentiality !
This makes a mockery of a duty of care !
This would appear to be also a substantial interference with a client's right to privacy and on any measure of reasonableness, also contrary to European Law,
It is simply Nonsense no Less No More.