Panel identifies consumer trust shortfall
Legal services consumers are becoming less confident about protection of their rights as the market liberalises, research has found.
The second consumer ‘healthcheck’ released by the Legal Services Consumer Panel today identified declining public trust in lawyers, though it pointed out that this is true of professions generally. Although more consumers are shopping around and benefiting from fixed fees than ever before, a rising number felt prices had become less transparent during 2011/12.
The panel, which based its research on surveys and information from the Legal Ombudsman, wants regulators to focus on trust and complaints-handling during the coming year.
Elisabeth Davies (pictured), chair of the panel, said: ‘Consumers are slowly starting to vote with their feet when choosing legal services, but unclear pricing and a lack of confidence continues to hold them back.’
The Legal Services Act 2007 was intended to liberalise the market while bolstering client confidence, but research collated by the panel found that wide variations remain in people’s experience of services.
In particular, lower socio-economic groups are less trusting, less confident, shop around less and are less satisfied, the healthcheck found.
Just 43% of the public said they trusted lawyers, falling to less than 40% among members of BME groups, although it was accepted there was a mismatch between perceptions of lawyers as a profession and individuals’ own experience.
The panel wants regulators to improve their diversity at senior levels and develop a better understanding of vulnerable consumers.
Comments
hate lawyers - love solicitors?
There's an important point that needs to be highlighted here. As mentioned in article, "although it was accepted there was a mismatch between perceptions of lawyers as a profession and individuals’ own experience."
Consumer research and other sources continue to show that people in general don't like 'lawyer' but are positive about 'their solicitor'. They are usually happy with or satisfied with the services they receive.
Solicitors' firms cannot be complacent, increasing competition means firms need to focus on improving or changing their client handling processes. This must ensure the firm does their best to deal with client’s needs so that person will come back next time and more importantly recommend their solicitor to others. Firms must actively attempt to retain clients because there are increasing numbers of organisations trying to tempt them away with new service offerings.
Surely the endless spouting
Surely the endless spouting by Government bodies in press releases (an awful lot of them coming from the LSCP and its sister the LeO) about how there is a big bad lawyer waiting around every corner trying to con the public, not offer them fair redress, not properly draft their will, and not treat them as a customer is part of the reason for this?
Bulletin Board Bully
Domcoop
At the risk of boring you again, might I refer you to the 'Bulletin Board Bully' analogy. It is one of my favourites.
The Bulletin Board Bully will behave badly on the internet bulletin board. He will call others unpleasant names and threaten them. Other participants will be outraged and call that person a 'bully'. But how will other readers decide whether that individual is a bully or not?
by:
a) observing the behaviour of the individual - or
b) by what other readers are saying about it.
Perhaps it is time you gave the general public some credit.
Query
The Law Gazette is the Law Society's official publication. Why do those who not student solicitors, trainee solicitors or solicitors feel the need to constantly post on here? Do they also post regularly on the RIBA Journal or Community Care? I think not.
LSG
Trainee Solicitor
Legal matters are of interest to many beyond those you have mentioned. Not least the general public who use legal services and are involved in litigation. Legal news and developments impact on many other professions and if LSG write articles and comment on other professions (e.g insurance industry, CAB, CMCs, consumer websites) then it follows that there will be alot of interest in what is written here.
If anything I feel people in the legal profession ought to be glad other folks are commenting here and providing a range of different insights and experiences. Otherwise this site might end up being rather stuffy and boring and no one will learn anything.
By the way, for what it is worth when I first came across this site I was initially quite hostile to the Law Society and the profession. Some of my perceptions have changed for the better and it is thanks to LSG that nowadays I always try to be constructive, even if people can be rude or will still disagree with alot of what I say.
One final thing - why not ask LSG what they think. I bet you they will tell you something along the lines of what I have said.
Regulation - what regulation ?
There are two issues here:
1. Too many regulators all duplicating the same thing and failing to address the real issues (see 2).
The LSB has just published a “Benchmarking Report” of consumers using legal services, which is really quite positive generally and specifically about level as of satisfaction with solicitors, even over costs. 83% would be likely to recommend their solicitor.
The LSB report expresses surprise that consumers didn’t question their bills more often – that might be evidence that the bills were in line with their expectations but the LSB don’t see it that way.
2. An unregulated market for legal services.
The LeO has already identified the fact that most consumers don’t know whether the service they are paying for is regulated, and probably have no understanding of what that means even if they did.
According to the LSB report only about 20% of “legal services” are regulated. Who are “lawyers” – it includes anyone who says they provide legal services; “non-practicing” solicitors, people who’ve bought a franchise to market wills, and now Eddie Stobart.
Unless and until the “regulators” do something to protect consumers by educating them so that they can make an informed decision we, the regulated profession, will continue to be tarred with the poor practice of unregulated providers. I’m not concerned about competition from them, as I am confident we will provide a better and more cost effective service, which people will chose if they were better informed.
LSCP
The Legal Services Consumers panel has to justify its existence and has to justify the salaries paid to its members.
This pointless report states the evidence is "surveys and information from the Legal Ombudsman".
This "report" is based upon consideration of information from the body designed to deal with complaints about all legal professionals, not just Solicitors.
The "consumers are starting to vote with their feet" statement is as pointless a statement as any commentary upon the "youth of today".
Why?
Why do bodies of ths kind insist upon publishing reports which, one way or another, rubbish the profession? Architects are not constantly sniped at by RIBA or the ARB; accountants are not constantly attacked by the ICAEW. Is there any other profession which has so many bodies "overseeing" it and publishing negative material?
In any event, it should come as no surprise that only 43% of the public trust lawyers, because lawyers frequently act in a way adverse to the interests of their clients' opponents. The question should not be "do you trust lawyers?", but "did you trust the lawyers you used?".
The general public are sick
The general public are sick of bad advice, and critcal judges who can suddenly take cases in to a direction which can cost thousands. The whole judiciary needs a good kick when it comes to the handling of some cases. They are not entirely to blame as presentation of the case by some solicitors coupled with bad advice costs clients dearly.
I have first hand experience of this since my 32 years in business and now having to deal with issues myself as LIP. The Courts are seeing more people like me defending or taking actions and using the power of speech (in plain English and not legal jargon) to present their cases.
I admit a certain amount of confidence and research coupled with good background advice does help. The public are sick of getting ripped off and getting poor results by having to pay thousands of pounds in some cases upfront. I wish my customers would do that! Solicitors need to look deeply and critically at how they handle cases, and the time taken to actually deal with things. What happened to the days of honour and dignity in being worried about the name on the door?
Public trust
Agree with Ahmed on many points.
Me - point taken about the number of bodies in existence and criticism of solicitors.
However, whilst some of that criticism might not be justified and the research flawed or simplistic, would you rather not hear any criticism at all? It would not be healthy if there was none.
And rightly or wrongly there is certainly a perception that many solicitors are unethical and dishonest. If you think it is unfair why don't you challenge that perception and find out more about why it exists? And why not criticise wrongdoing in your profession when it is reported in the articles here. I have read so many articles here about one disciplinary hearing or another where reader after reader has lined up to defend the offender.
Show some willingness to support the regulator and drive this minority out of the profession and the public might not tar all solicitors with the same brush. One more suggestion - and one which I have never, ever come across in all my dealings with solicitors who have made mistakes or been unnecessarily arrogant to me. An apology goes a long long way.
Think about this - the reason banks and insurers have got away with providing a poor service for years is because they apologise for their mistakes. The apologies might not be genuine but they work.
Well, Kelly, most solicitors
Well, Kelly, most solicitors try to provide a decent service to their clients. And are fed up with being criticised unjustly- so are quite simply saying adieu to it all.
Best of luck with what remains -the standards will be just as good as the banks provide (because it will be the banks mainly). All well deserved-on both sides!
Oh, and by the way-say sorry
Oh, and by the way-say sorry for a mistake and see if your insurer backs you! Go on, try it when you have a bump in your car-then try it with PII.
Criticising wrongdoing
I'm only too ready to criticise wrongdoing. However, Kelly's pet example of wrongdoing (the "bulletin board" defamation litigation) seems to me to have involved no culpable wrongdoing at all. Solicitors who are dishonest should be (and usually are) drummed out of the profession. Regrettably, the same cannot be said about solicitors who are simply rubbish. There are certainly far too many of those around.
As for apologising for mistakes, Kelly overlooks the fact that, if a claim is made against a solicitor, the solicitor's insurer takes over the handling and disposal of it. The solicitor typically has little input into the terms of any disposal of the claim, though he may have to contribute his policy excess.
43% of people trust lawyers
That is an indictment of the profession.
As a regulated profession, it contains too many dishonest and grossly negligent people.
Not many years ago, putting the client first was the rule, Honesty and integrity of solicitors could be taken for granted. None of that is the case any more.
The public know they are being fleeced and not treated fairly and honestly.
Here are just few concrete examples why they don't do so:
A regional firm with offices in Newton Ferrers Northampton and Leicester put in a bogus bill to the Court of Protection (overstated by about £4000 in excess of the retainer according to a judge)
A firm in London which represented Princess Diana put in a bill for £66,000 which was reduced by the Court of Protection to £48,500. The question of indemnity was raised. The firm alleged that about £40,000 had been paid by their client. In fact only £20,000 had been paid by the client, so a breach of indemnity occurred and the firm wrongly obtained well over £25,000 from the Patient's estate
A firm which is a national firm which has offices in Sheffield and provided a well respected Law Society President put in a claim for costs in the Court of Protection against a Patient. The Costs Officer found double charging charging overheads as costsand billing for unauthorised work of many thousands of pounds
And theres more .....