Ombudsman warns of ‘confusion’ over legal services
Confusion over regulation of legal services is leaving consumers vulnerable and exposed, the Legal Ombudsman concludes today.
Adam Sampson will publish his first annual report to parliament later today, following the launch of the organisation in October 2010.
Sampson said that despite some ‘shocking’ stories, he is generally content with the quality of legal services provided, but more problematic are gaps and confusion in which services are regulated, and which are not.
Sampson says: ‘One service which crops up a lot is will-writing. It’s a service carried out often by will-writing firms which aren’t regulated. Because of this customers are left with little means of redress when things go wrong.
‘We’ve seen similar confusion about claims management companies, with lots of consumers believing they’re getting a legal service even though most of the work is carried out by a non-authorised person. Again, we can’t help.’
Sampson said some of the stories he had heard were ‘shocking’, but added that ‘most lawyers do a good job for their clients and, when things do go wrong, we generally see a great willingness from the profession to work and to learn with us’.
Sampson’s move to highlight the damage done to the profession by unregulated individuals was welcomed by consumer organisation Which? and by the Law Society.
Desmond Hudson, chief executive of TLS, added: ‘The gap in regulation which allows unregulated cowboys to operate in areas like will writing does not just cause unfair competition to solicitors, who provide a regulated, professional service.
‘It is also damaging to consumers, because the unregulated providers are not insured, do not provide a compensation fund and are not covered by the Legal Ombudsman’s scheme for consumer redress.’
The changing market after the Legal Services Act comes into force in October could inject further confusion into the understanding of which service provider is regulated and which is not.
Sampson said there is a risk that consumers will be left bewildered about which regulator is supposed to be protecting their interests.
He added: ‘Some firms offer ‘expert’ online legal advice which is often bundled with financial or insurance services, and many of these are backed by large corporations. Naturally, consumers expect the same standard of care as from their local lawyer, but in some cases it’s woefully lacking.
‘Thing aren’t helped by many unregulated companies masquerading as traditional law firms, branded with more legal wigs and gowns than you can shake a quill pen at.’
The Legal Services Board launched an investigation into whether will-writing should be a regulated activity last week, following a recommendation from its Legal Services Consumer Panel that it should be.
Comments
An excellent opportunity for
An excellent opportunity for the Law Society to fight back and promote solicitors, emphasising the high standards which are enforced, the insurance and the compensation fund.
It won't of course-it is more than happy to go along with the general trashing of the profession, led by the SRA and supported by the press.
No surprise that the Claims Management Companies cause confusion-they effectively advertise themselves as lawyers. Still, the public needs to realise that its a market-those who go for (supposedly) cheap will find that it is only the product that is cheap-not the price. Perhaps the Ombudsman might care to emphasise that -but no, of course he won't.
Will writers
I actually met one of these people (toting an anorak outside Homebase - him not me !) and chatted briefly to him about the service provided. I asked him about compensation fund / prof indemnity ins and he became suspicious and started rambling at which point I revealed my colours ! Does anyone remember the sort of will Allied Dunbar et al used to punt out to unsuspecting victims - often at a not inconsiderable cost and witnessed by next door's cat etc !
Damge done to the Profession by unregulated individuals
Well, we told them so, but they would not listen.
TLS should dig out its archives for the responses to Thatcher's "reform" proposals of the mid to late 1980s, and shout as loud as it can that government and public were warned what would happen if unqualified people were allowed to provide legal services.
Did Thatcher and her colleagues listen? No.
Are Cameron and his colleagues listening now? No.
Unqualified individuals should not be referred to as "lawyers". They are nothing of the sort. They should be prosecuted if they do.
Homeopaths are not referred to as doctors, or even medical practitioners, and rightly so.
It really is not rocket science. It is in the public interest that only qualified, regulated and indemnified Solicitors, Barristers, and Legal Executives should be entitled to call themselves "lawyers". No disrespect to Licensed conveyancers, but their training and qualifications are insufficient to place them in the same category.
With more than 126,000 Solicitors on the Roll only someone with a very big chip on their shoulder and a very large axe to grind could suggest there needs to be more competition.