- In Practice
- In Business
- Moving On
Law Society dismisses ‘nonsensical’ third-party redress plans
Thursday 14 June 2012 by Catherine Baksi
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.
- LETR ‘delayed by regulators’
- UK turns back on EU justice project
- Unanimous: profession votes for ‘training days’ action in protest over cuts
- International firms call off merger
- Hundreds attend legal aid protest rally
- Small business spurning legal services – LSB research
- HMRC proposes crackdown on LLP ‘disguised employment’
- PCT will mean the death of Welsh justice, lawyers warn
- Poor will suffer from court fee changes, MoJ warned
- Overwhelming public backing for legal aid: poll
- Fight PI changes, says MASS chair
- Mass meeting of barristers takes a stand on QASA
- Pannone turns to fixed-price mediation post-Jackson
- Grayling asks for quality standard for PCT firms
- 7,000 lawyers to hit the streets for free legal advice
- Pilot aims to limit clinical negligence solicitors’ fees
- Will-writing could still be regulated
- In-house growth accelerating
- Appeal Court applies Russian law in dispute
- Insurers to revamp third-party code
- Court interpreters reject new contract deal
- European data plan labelled ‘demented’
- Saudi Arabia accepts registration of female lawyer
- Don’t worry about Jackson fallout – judge
- North-west paralegal initiative
- French revolution
- ‘Google’ asylum refusals