LSB report highlights web advice shortfall
Consumers of legal services want more tailored support from the internet as a first point of contact for their legal problems, a report has found.
Research carried out by the Legal Services Board found consumers were often ‘swamped’ by information online and gave up halfway through their search. The LSB said there was real potential for an official and independent ‘legal advice and guidance’ site.
Relatively few consumers currently rely on online sources to gain reassurance or information. Those searches that were undertaken often resulted in ‘too much information and choice’.
‘There was a common view that the law is very precise, can turn on the smallest detail, and therefore the risks involved in trying to build up your own knowledge based on the wild west of the internet was too great,’ the report said.
‘In comparison, with health issues - another area where consumers regularly rely on expert professional advice - consumers knew you could refer to NHS Direct online, and “it wouldn’t lie to you”.’
When offered the prospect of an independent website for advice, consumers felt it could offer:
- A reliable and trustworthy ‘one-stop shop’ for information;
- Information on which consumers could have more informed conversations with solicitors;
- Help with sensitive issues to avoid the need to discuss them in person;
- Guidance on how to choose a good solicitor; and
- The chance to save money by not approaching solicitors unnecessarily.
The LSB report stated the need for an internet service was more of a priority at a time where funding for legal aid and other support services is being reduced.
But it warned that consumers most in need of legal support and help - the lowest income groups or those facing language barriers - would be less likely to use an online service.
Stakeholders were also supportive of ways to provide more information, and discussions will now be held between the profession and regulators on how to develop and publicise an advice site.
Comments
Web advice to address the paralegal question
Good idea. On the subject of guidance on how to choose a good solicitor the the web advice could suggest the following questions are asked by the consumer:-
1. Does your firm employ paralegals and if so will a paralegal be doing the work on my file?
2. How many paralegals does the solicitor supervise?
3. What educational qualifications does the paralegal assigned to my case have?
4. What level of supervision will the paralegal have?
5, Can a solicitor deal with my file instead of a paralegal?
The web advice about good solicitors could also contain a CONSUMER MARK WARNING such as IF A SOLICITOR SAYS HE SUPERVISES FOUR PARALEGALS WITH LEGAL QUALIFICATION THEN BE WARNED THAT THE SOLICITOR IS NOT ACTUALLY DOING THE JOB AND THE PARALEGALS WILL HAVE LITTLE (IF ANY) SUPERVISION." He will probably be having a meeting about fresh negligence claims.
There could also be a CONSUMER MARK RED ALERT WARNING such as "IF LUCY THE PARALEGAL ASSIGNED TO YOUR CASE WAS A HAIR DRESSER THE WEEK BEFORE THEN SHE MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS A "GOOD" SOLICITOR EQUIVALENT FOR SOME YEARS TO COME.
I do get the point you are
I do get the point you are making, but I have to disagree that there is a problem here.
The client has two choices:-
1) a "traditional" set-up, all work done by one solicitor and his / her secretary, with an "assistant" solicitor or "trainee" to help. As all the work is done by the solicitor, you pay solicitor rates. Even if that "work" consists of telephoning the court to ask them if they received the fax you just sent (which you had to send because after sitting on the phone to the court for half an hour - chargeable - they told you they had lost something).
2) a new set-up, where a solicitor oversees and directs the work that is done, on the whole, by paralegals.
Under 1) not only are the costs and subsequently the charges considerably higher, as it is one man / woman, dealing with all the cases, then the stress that the individual has is higher, the likelihood of things getting missed is higher, and the likelihood of the client being able to call and speak to the "one man / woman" is of course lower, given that all the other clients want to speak as well and there is only one individual to whom they can speak.
Why would I take the time to dictate into a machine "Can you do a letter to the court please. Dear sirs, we write further to our telephone conversation earlier today when you advised that you did not receive a certificate of service. We therefore enclose a further copy and would be grateful if you could please place it before the district judge"? And then send the client a bill for 42 minutes time spent @ £250 per hour. (and wonder why there are complaints about costs)
The alternative is going to a person and saying "will you check if the court have dealt with the Smith file, and let the client have an update?", and the said person doing all that work himself / herself. And then send the client a bill for 42 minutes time spent @ £95 per hour.
So the LSB wants an "official
So the LSB wants an "official and independent legal advice and guidance site"?
Who do they propose do this? Have they ever tried getting authoritative advice from, for example the Revenue and Customs? The staff there don't understand their own rules never mind give "official advice"!
What the LSB should do is set aside some of their own budget so they can do it. It will be official, as is the advice from HMRC-and vary with who is giving it. These people are total clowns who have no idea what they are talking about.
across the board
I think that is is a problem we most of the internet. To use a personal example, i wanted to learn about how to develop my website SEO. I spend so many hours searching the net, picking out little pieces if information (but most of the time obtaining the same info). It got to the point where i just bought a book as i knew it would have all that i needed in one place - and it did.
Of course as SEO businesses are not regulated, there is no government body who checks this.
The internet provides
The internet provides consumers with unprecedented information on tap which must not be underestimated. However, with too much information comes complexity and uncertainty. Looking for information and navigating the specific facts can be a daunting task particularly where the subject matter is unfamiliar with with array of info leading to overloading.
The most simple solution is to look at sites that are reputable and government approved or recognised. However, there is the small matter of money with companies and organisations reliant on revenue to keep sites going this often means that consumers are given restricted info with more detailed and importantly up to date information eg case law being only available through subcription.
These means consumers are reliant on advice from agencies for assist, but in my experience often they are no better than the info on the internet; put simply the advice is as good as the advisor with professional advice as alternative, this is dependent on eligibility for legal aid.
However, with increasing interactive sites there is alas room for improvement and help through internet forums and blogs to the extent that in future this could be exploited like face book with instant access and on the go advice..