Ombudsman will name lawyers and firms ‘in public interest’
The Legal Ombudsman has taken the highly controversial decision to name lawyers and law firms in circumstances where there is a ‘pattern of complaints’ against them or when it is in the ‘public interest’ to do so.
The regulator denied that its object is to ‘name and shame’ transgressors, but acknowledges that the new policy could damage the businesses of those it identifies. The policy will take effect from April 2012 and will not be retrospective.
The ombudsman began publishing anonymised case data earlier this year, after taking over from the Legal Complaints Service in October 2010. However, in April it postponed a decision on the contentious naming issue, prompting consumer watchdog the Legal Services Consumer Panel to accuse it of capitulating to ‘spurious objections from the legal profession’.
Unveiling the new policy, ‘naming lawyers - protecting consumers’, Elizabeth France, chair of the Office for Legal Complaints, which oversees the ombudsman, said: ‘We consider we have struck a balance between protecting consumers and encouraging an independent and strong legal profession. Every day we know most lawyers do a good job for their clients, but there are some who simply don’t. That’s why it is in the profession’s interest to make sure all who provide services to consumers are doing so effectively.’
From next April the OLC will implement a policy of identifying lawyers or law firms in two ways: Lawyers or firms which have been involved in cases where there is a ‘pattern of complaints’ or set of individual circumstances that indicate it is in the public interest that the firm or individual be identified, will be named. This information will be published immediately this is deemed warranted, from April, and from July it will also be included in quarterly information updates.
Decisions on publication will be made on a case-by-case basis. Relevant criteria may include whether: there is evidence in the case of systematic failures that indicate that other consumers will be adversely affected; the facts of the case show exceptional or severe impact on an individual complainant (or group of complainants); there is evidence of very serious service failure; or there is evidence of significant lack of cooperation with the ombudsman that has caused detriment to the consumer in delaying resolution.
Explaining the move, the OLC said there is ‘broad agreement’ among consumer bodies, lawyers and professional bodies that the naming of lawyers or law firms ‘should be used to address severe and systematic service failures where it is in the public interest to do so’. Publication will occur even where the relevant regulator has begun disciplinary proceedings.
The ombudsman’s data tracking has suggested the number of lawyers or firms identified in this way will be very low, though the policy ‘runs the risk of some commercial detriment’ to them. The identity of complainants will remain confidential.
Also from April, the OLC will in addition require the names of all lawyers or law firms involved in complaints that have been resolved by a formal ombudsman decision to be collated. This information will be published quarterly from July in the form of a table summarising the numbers, outcomes and areas of law involved in the relevant cases. It says this will improve standards and avoid penalizing the profession for ‘occasional lapses’.
The consumer panel welcomed the new naming policy, which will be reviewed after two years. Chair Elisabeth Davies said: ‘This is great news for consumers, who tell us they feel in the dark when trying to find a good lawyer. There will no longer be a minority in the profession who provide a poor service and fail to put things right. People use legal services at critical moments in their lives and it is entirely appropriate that those who provide these services are held accountable if they get things wrong.’
Consumer minister Ed Davey MP commented: ‘I am pleased the ombudsman has decided to publish this data. This will make the legal profession stronger, improve service standards and consumers will be better protected as a result.’
A Law Society spokesperson said: 'While it is important for consumers to be able to make an informed choice about which legal service provider to choose, we do not believe that publication of this data in the proposed format will help consumers make that choice.
'The lack of data about the size of firms or the number of transactions they undertake means that publication will penalise firms who do high volumes of work even where they have had relatively few complaints. It will also disproportionately affect those solicitors who work in certain areas of law where the level of complaints are higher. These solicitors often serve vulnerable clients.
'Equally, as the ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over all legal service providers, many of which are unregulated, such as will writers, the name and shame approach does not give the consumer a true reflection of the market and is far from transparent.'
Comments
(1) How many ABS's, CMCs.
(1) How many ABS's, CMCs. etc, will care two hoots about this (when they have the marketing budget and PR spend to deal with any such negative publicity)?
(2) How many sole practitioners will go to the wall for having the misfortune to take on a litigation case that - surprise surprise - the client may well lose?
Catch all the bad fish.......
I AGREE.............................
Isn't it about time we had Legislation over Solicitors ability and performance?
Accountants, Farmers, Superstores and so many more have the responsibility of due dilligence, without insisting the legal profession be monitored; our own system is failing us.
The system we see today, insists on written complaints and a long drawn out process, it should be a transparent system, in fact lift the Law Profession Veil!
Corporations have to be audited and within the Legal System. So in the same fairness.... Solicitors, Barristers, Judges; should all be prevented from slipping through the net.
Sooner late than never
I wonder if Rick Kordowski had any influence on this decision??
Thanks to Rick
This is an excellent step by the LO,
But, we really have to thank Rick and 'Solicitors From Hell' - without his contribution to transparency and accountability in the profession the regulators would never have moved to this point of naming firms.
I do hope the LO will appear in defence of Rick at all and any future litigation in relation to his website.
Well done, Rick - just shows, there may have been some madness in your method - but you've helped to change the profession for the better. Who said you can't change the world?
Le0 -v- SRA
Oh well, Interesting to hear that they are doing this for the purposes of "protecting consumers". Really? Is that why the SRA's agents (Solicitors), in a recent intervention I heard about, managed to lose several files which resulted in cases being struck out. Well.... I wonder if LeO will decide to publish that firm's name....or perhaps.....its "not in the public interest" to inform the public that really sometimes, the SRA gets it wrong, as could LeO.... Im not suggesting for second that we should not be transparent... but please... can the hypocracy of the system be put to end, once and for all... this is all nonsense really. I wonder if other professionals such as Dentists, Doctors, Accountants and Architects etc.. have to put up with this? It's like saying, Asda gets more complaints about its cream cheese than Marks and Spencers.....So what?!
Perhaps Rick and Solicitors from Hell should fight for protecting its IP. I could write reams on this subject but let us see what unfolds. The "consumers" were once known as "clients" I wonder if that old-fashioned term will ever come back?
Ombudsman to name lawyers
I see nothing wrong with lawyers being named where there are patterns of behaviour resulting in poorservice. As a profession it is in our interests to rid ourselves of the 'bad apples'.
If the Ombudsman is to be even handed I would hope to see consumers named where there are similar patterns of unsubstantiated complaints. Then most of us might avoid acting for those individuals, thereby reducing the risk of complaints.
black list some clients
So agree -
If the Ombudsman is to be even handed I would hope to see consumers named where there are similar patterns of unsubstantiated complaints. Then most of us might avoid acting for those individuals, thereby reducing the risk of complaints.
Subjective reasoning
What factors will the LeO use to decide if there is a systematic issue or cause for concern? Number of complaints per solicitor, severity of complaints, area of practice?
This should be dealt with as a formal investigation before matters are published by the LeO or this could be worse than Solicitors From Hell for lack of transparency and accountability. How long will the firm remain on the list, will there be an appeals or rehabilitation process?
Firms that are failing clients should be improved or intervened not tarnished.
if you're on the list, you've already been tarnished
Re. 'Firms that are failing clients should be improved or intervened not tarnished.'
That really is bizarre - firms that are failing clients have already tarnished themselves. And 'intervention' - they should be disbarred, not undergo some pointless PC exercise.
They are not struggling school kids who need another chance to pass their exams - these are professionals who have so badly stuffed it up that a regulator has had to name them.
These firms, or more precisely, the partners that run them, need to hang up their gowns and go and do something else for a living, maybe tarmac the drives of elderly people or something more likely to suit their attitude towards their customers.
The whole point of this is to let the public know which law firms ARE tarnished - not to hide them away out of view, like the profession's dirty little secret. It's not the regulator's job to make bad lawyers good either.
I take it you have read the
I take it you have read the existing Legal Ombudsman website with the publication of Ombudsman decisions?
I have. There are probably four decisions (out of around ten times that number) which are "professionals who have so badly stuffed it up" whose "attitude towards their customers" requires them to go and tarmac drives.
Most of the decisions that go against solicitors (which are by no means all of them - far from it) are petty trivial issues, to which the Ombudsman awards redress of a few quid for inconvenience, which is invariably rejected by the client who thinks it is not enough.
One question I always ask is if solicitors have such bad customer service, etc., how come it only happens to be client's who lose their cases who bring complaints? None - and I mean none - of the complaints are "I won my case, but the solicitor never kept me updated, or answered my calls". Why is that?
Subjective Reasoning
Re Anon 8/11/2011 - 14:15... I agree with what you say.
Just another quango throwing
Just another quango throwing its weight around-should be treated with the contempt it (and all its like) should be treated.
Hopefully they will name the
Hopefully they will name the lawyers who abandon their firms (mainly sole practitioners).
Most complaints under these circumstances are not about losing, they are about total lack of communication.
I know of such a firm where the lady sole-practioner left her 100 or so client files (and an HMRC PAYE debt) last May.
She is still listed as being active!!!
The clients complain via public forums which can be far more damaging for the profession.
At least the LeO will base their publication on the facts of the matter.
I really doubt that sole
I really doubt that sole practitioners just wake up one day and think "I know, I'll abandon my practice". With soaring insurance premiums, a regulator set on destroying the independent sector and a representative body who couldn't give a ....., sole practitioners are being FORCED to close.
And I fail to see how that's a complaint, to be honest. It's an inconvenient fact of life in a capitalist market economy.
"Dear Legal Ombudsman, my solicitor went bust" ... "Oh that's terrible Mrs Client, we have looked into this and found that the sole practitioner failed you by not being able to run a profitable business in a difficult economic climate. We've told the solicitor she must re-open her business immediately and make a profit. And we've awarded you compensation as well."
I have recently been the
I have recently been the subject of a complaint. I have to say that the ombudsmans office handled it in an exemplary manner.They were courteous,got hold of all the issues and balanced in their approach. I was exonerated of course! The point is that this was not a one sided consumer based anti solicitor investigation such as some of your correspondents suggest.I helped myself by responding in a timely and courteous manner to the complainant and to the ombudsman and having all the appropriate procedures in place.There will always be unwarranted complaints but moaning about the ombudsman is nit the solution-the solution is to be able to justify yourself with the appropriate procedures and evidence
I agree - as I said above if
I agree - as I said above if you actually take the time to look at the Ombudsman decisions, you will see that your case is pretty representative.
BUT - do you want your firm to be published in this list, despite the fact that you have done nothing wrong? Where the persons reading will (as one of the posters above) assume that you are wrong even if the published decision says otherwise (no smoke without fire) and that you should go and tarmac driveways?
And I fear the implications of the proposal have not been properly picked up on. The Legal Ombudsman works in two stages:-
1) Informal resolution. If complaints are resolved by informal resolution, they will only be published if there are "systemic issues", etc.
If the informal resolution doesn't resolve matters (and remember - it is the complaining client and the complaining client alone who makes the decision on this), then the matter moves to stage 2.
2) Formal Ombudsman decision. These will all be published.
So let's say in a case like yours, the LeO decides in your favour. But the grasping client says, "no - I want £500 compo, and want this to go to a full decision."
You then have a choice. 1) Pay out the £500, and the problem goes away; or, 2) Stand up for what's right, but in the certain knowledge your firm will be publicised (and may risk losing one of the "free complaints" meaning the next moaner could cost you a LeO fee of £400 come what may).
The way this proposal has been set up, firms will be forced to pay out to avoid unmeritorious complaints. And its naive to think that the complaints / consumer maffia out there on their forums and websites won't know about this full well.
Entirely agree with you. The
Entirely agree with you. The Legal Ombudsman is going down the same route as the Legal Complaints Service-the solicitor loses come what may. Personally, I always believed that would happen despite the fanfare as to how things were going to be different.
All bureaucracies eventually expand and create their own jobs-didn't somone called Parkinson tell us this decades ago? Without the expansion (which is constant) there rae no nice well paid jobs and pensions.
I think you have
I think you have misunderstood the proposal. As i read it only stats are to be published for formal ombudsman decision not names (except where a serious problem exists)
Go on to Legal Ombudsman
Go on to Legal Ombudsman website, and look at "News", top item (currently) is headed "7th November - It is right to publish the names of lawyers in some specific circumstances. Read more". Click on the Press Release which is linked to that paragraph.
Paragraph number 5 of the Press Release says:-
"Every three months the Legal Ombudsman will also publish lawyers’ names and firms involved in all complaints that have been resolved by a formal Ombudsman decision."
So on top of and in addition to the other proposals for publicity, they also intend that every firm - whether in the right or in the wrong - who doesn't pay off a moaning client will be publicised anyway.
Too Little - Far too Late?
"Patterns" and "Public Interest" - wishy-washy criteria?
Why has it taken so LONG to do so LITTLE?
...
Or do we already know?
I have no idea - it's not
I have no idea - it's not clear what you have waited so "LONG" for? Nobody forces people to use solicitors if they dislike / distrust them. And if they do - and something goes wrong - the mechanisms to recompense that person are of an order of magnitude more comprehensive and favourable than almost any other service one can obtain in England and Wales.
Likewise there is nothing at all stopping you putting up a website with details of any complaints made against your own business, which I assume you own, pay significant amounts of tax in respect of and employ people to work at, etc.
The 'facts' of the matter -
The 'facts' of the matter - as stated by the Legal Ombudsman - are:
Total number of contacts (presumably complaints against Solicitors) 38,155
Number of cases accepted 3,768
Number of cases resolved (during initial 6 month period) 1,450
IN CONCLUSION: roughly 4% of complaints against Solicitors have been resolved by the Legal Ombudsman during 6/10/2010 to 31/03/2011.
The Pie charts on the legal Ombudsman site are meaningless - at this point in time. One of the charts displays "Cases accepted for investigation by area of Law" but if we look at the number of cases accepted - 3,768, the Pie chart displays less than 10% of the grievances that individuals have against Solicitors.
LETS HAVE STATISTICS FOR THOSE GRIEVANCES THAT THE LEGAL OMBUDSMAN HAVE IGNORED..............what are all these people complaining about????????
DomCoop (a fervent poster on the Law Gazette Blog) appears to view all grievances against Solicitors as:
"......petty trivial issues, to which the Ombudsman awards redress of a few quid for inconvenience, which is invariably rejected by the client who thinks it is not enough.......... But the grasping client says, [no - I want £500 compo, and want this to go to a full decision]...........who doesn't pay off a moaning client will be publicised anyway".
Although the above comments by DomCoop, appear to be wishful thinking , I do agree with DomCoop on ONE issue: "Most of the decisions that go against solicitors (which are by no means all of them - far from it) are petty trivial issues, to which the Ombudsman awards redress of a few quid for inconvenience"
Lets have 'REAL GRIEVANCES' aired and statistics that represent the truth......... NO ONE IS INTERESTED IN A HALF HEARTED ATTEMPT AT THE TRUTH. It is also extremely worringly that the Solicitors have to be 'SERIAL OFFENDERS' and a 'DANGER TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE' before any real exposure is given on the Legal Ombudsman site.
Most of the time, the
Most of the time, the rejections are:-
a) the complainer hasn't tried to resolve the matter using the lawyer's complaints procedure.
b) the complainer is outside the time limit.
c) the complainer is not complaining about poor service or negligence by their own solicitor, but is trying to complain against their opponent's solicitor to gain a tactical advantage in some sort of litigation (often but not always debt recovery - i.e. someone hasn't paid their credit card bill and shock horror, gets a demand to pay it back from a solicitor. They then try to complain to the Legal Ombudsman, in the hope that any legal action is dropped.)
NB The Legal Ombudsman does not just cover solicitors - barristers, licensed conveyancers, and others are also covered.
If you think that horrifying truth being covered up then the answer is simple. Don't use a solicitor. You don't have to, you know.
There being no facility to
There being no facility to respond to letters printed in the Opinion section, may I draw readers' attention to the letter "Secret Police" in todays Gazette.
The views expressed there reflect proper professionalism, as was once the ethos of this (now) industry.
The SRA is effectively under no control whatsoever, the Council of the Society seemingly having no stomach to question whatever is done, even such matters as a computer system which does not work on schedule-and for which, naturally, no apology, let alone resignation, has been forthcoming.
The future would seem to hold the prospect of a similar catastrophe to that of banking, where profit came before professional banking principles. We are all paying for that.
Who cares what the LeO thinks
Who cares what the LeO thinks or whether it publishes names?
Any sensible client will take little heed of the views of the numerous bureaucratic pompous authorities which govern modern life. They will take account of the views of other clients who have used that "provider"-not self serving apparatchiks.
I was offered substantial compensatiion from the Law Society
Which I reluctantly accepted, so you could say I won my case. The problem was I spent over three times the compensatiion award in legal fees in attenpting to get the matter settled. Four years later I had proof that my solicitor had forged my signature to limit the claim. The matter only took 12 years to come to trial and in the interviening years the SCB/CCS/LCS/LSO etc. etc awarded me tens of thousands of Pounds for poor service the many solicitors who I appointed to deal with the professional negligence claim against the original firm of solicitors.
I still need find an honest solicitor, but from my experience I doubt if there are any.