Unhappy consumers ‘intimidated by jargon’
Legal services consumers feel intimidated by jargon when they make complaints to law firms and for that reason are more likely to take their complaint to the Legal Ombudsman, research has found.
A survey published today of more than 1,000 people who had complained to the ombudsman found significant barriers between consumers and providers over language used in correspondence.
The research found examples of defensive responses from firms that could be interpreted as ‘confrontational and threatening’.
The language used was too difficult to understand or was felt to be intimidating, leaving consumers either angry or resolved to take the complaint elsewhere.
The research found that significant numbers of complainants had gone directly to the ombudsman. Of clients who had complained to the Legal Ombudsman before giving their lawyer the chance to resolve the complaint - what the ombudsman calls a ‘premature complaint’ - 63% said it was because they had no confidence they would be taken seriously or that their complaint would be resolved fairly.
But the survey found firms that dealt with complaints successfully were more likely to be recommended to others by the aggrieved person, in spite of the original dispute.
Elisabeth Davies, chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel, said: ‘This hard-hitting report reveals why so many consumers don't complain about poor service by a lawyer - people are confused about what to do, get completely thrown by legal jargon, believe they won't get a fair hearing and fear that upsetting their lawyer could have repercussions for their case. Just as bad, a quarter of those who do complain rate their experience as one out of 10.’
It was also found that legal services consumers were unsure of the role of the ombudsman in the complaints process.
When they did go to the ombudsman, expectations could often not be met, as they expected that the ombudsman would ‘do something’ about their case.
Chief ombudsman Adam Sampson said: ‘Although there are some positives to take from this report some clear examples of good complaint handling for instance it’s clear that many lawyers could do more to ensure complaints are taken seriously.’
The ombudsman has published a guide for lawyers to handle complaints.
Comments
Brings to mind the comments
Brings to mind the comments of LJ Linsell in a partnership dispute -
" it is all very well putting the law in a nutshell- its keeping it there!"
Complaints Handling
I think one of the most satisfying elements in carrying out Lexcel assessments is seeing the improvements in practices' complaints records as accreditation continues.
It's pleasing to hear that some practices have gone though the intervening year since the last Lexcel assessment with no complaints at all, or if there have been complaints, they have been successfully concluded by implementing the practice's complaints procedure and not involving the Ombudsman. It would be unrealistic to say that there is never Ombudsman involvement in Lexcel accredited practices, but in my experience, it is reduced considerably where the practice invokes its complaints procedure and the client can see that they 'mean business' in getting to the bottom of the problem before it has a chance to escalate.
I think the most telling sentence in the article is: -
"But the survey found firms that dealt with complaints successfully were more likely to be recommended to others by the aggrieved person, in spite of the original dispute."
If the practice shows real interest in sorting out the client's issues, it can result in a strengthened relationship rather than a termination of it.
Christopher Gough is quite
Christopher Gough is quite right. Most people accept that things will go wrong from time to time, and if a complaint is dealt with promptly and fairly, they feel reassured that they are dealing with a firm that owns up to mistakes and puts them right.
Facilitating Complaints
A sincere, simple,efficient fair complaints facility is the way to keep and develop a client base. But what is this "survey"? What questions were raised, by whom, and to what spectrum of clients (by cases type and geographic location of firms concerned)? How many client/complainants were asked questions, but did not reply? "..significant numbers of complainants had gone directly to the ombudsman ..." - how many exactly? "This hard-hitting report reveals why so many consumers don't complain about poor service by a lawyers ..." - how is it known that "so many don't complain"? Have non- complainants been traced and asked why they didn't complain? Are there really so many? I'm thinking there may be a good measure of 'self service' in this 'survey' - and certainly some very lazy and inadequate reporting of it! All firms should strive for constant improvement - but lets not all head for the 4th floor window on the basis of this dismal bit of reporting!
The expression "legal
The expression "legal services consumers" say it all in terms of where we have reached on this issue. Does the patient on the operating table demand a detailed plain English translation of all the medical issues facing him or her at that point?
Solicitors will usually try their best to reduce down to simple concepts the subtle nuances which can often attend the particular matter being conducted for the client .However the problem is that much of the Law remains complicated, and because a hostile press with complicit politicians have spread the message that the Law is on a par with buying baked beans, the public now have unrealistic expectations in terms of lawyers being able to explain even the most complex legal scenarios or indeed how their problems can be resolved.
The trick is to make the law accessible but without being guilty of oversimplification.
Sometimes the complexity of the Law and its cost lead to complaints. Some complaints will be justified but equally many will not.
Firms adhering to high professional standards will have nothing to fear in terms of dealing with complaints and hopefully such complaints will be few and far between.
The tendency of solicitors to be defensive when dealing with complaints justified or otherwise is currently being exacerbated because (1) the judges always blame the lawyers when things go wrong (2) the impact on PI premiums of even the most modest claims and (3) the feeling that solicitors in general have a perception that consumerism in the Law has gone too far and they are being overwhelmed by the sense that the SRA cares little for them in difficult times.
Point to bear in mind is that
Point to bear in mind is that many "consumers" (I can remember when they used to be called clients) are prone in these difficult times to the "something for nothing" bug. If one complains, a reduction in fees is usually offered. Clearly many issues are genuine, but in the lemming like drive of the profession to bend over backwards to provide "Law Lite at Bargain Basement Prices", we should not forget the corrosive nature of the complaining culture - "I am therefore I complain" and the behaviour that is all too common as a result. The fact that many do not understand "jargon" is perhaps merely evidence in many cases that educational standards fell into the abyss years ago. All too many CV's that I receive from supposedly qualified people display a woeful ignorance of grammar allied to presumptious "mateyness". If many lawyers are products of the "race to the bottom", it is perhaps no wonder that clients cannot understand them.
Complaint Resolution
If we get a complaint we try and deal with it politely and quickly. We usually then take the client or consumer out for a pint and a Happy Meal. This tends to put the complaint straight to bed.
Too difficult to understand
"The language used was too difficult to understand." We really are a nation of morons. When a doctor responds in writing to a complaint, is he expected to avoid medical terminology? What I find difficult to understand is what exactly the Legal Ombudsman feels he is achieving by dumbing down the profession.
complaints..
having had a complaint referred to the Ombudsman after spending many hours trying to explain why the redemption figure from the lender was their debt and not ours and, it occurred to me that we should perhaps get a local firm to be a second level in the complaints procedure. e.g. if they are not happy with my response to the complaint, they could refer it to a partner in a local firm (on a reciprocal basis).
The other firm are likely to understand the realities of dealing with some clients and take a more normal view.
This would work because despite what our professional bodies would have us believe - every Solicitor I have come across has been committed to the profession and upholding the standards expected.
Legal services consumers feel intimidated by jargon
This is a non-issue. If complaining legal services users (or "clients" for those intelligent and bright enough to understand the term) cannot understand the jargon used by law firms they should have paid more attention in English lessons or recognise their failings and go out and buy a dictionary.
Of course that then leads you
Of course that then leads you into another trap. Simplify your advice and some person at the Legal Ombudsman with the benefit of hindsight (and a nice public sector pay package) will tell you you missed something.
I have been told by "Vicci", the investigator at the Legal Ombudsman dealing with my delightful ex-client, that the advice I gave my client was "wrong". Part of the reason for this is that I simplified it. I didn't give the client the benefit of three years of a law degree, a year of a postgraduate qualification, and numerous years of practice and experience thereafter: I simply told the client that, in my opinion, he was not going to be able to get out of paying interest on costs he was ordered to pay his opponent (on the indemnity basis) in the circumstances of his case. I also told him that in practice it rarely matters as these things settle on a global basis inclusive of interest and the costs of the detailed assessment.
"Vicci" acknowledges that she is not legally qualified, but then goes on to say she's read the Civil Procedure Rules and they provide that if the detailed assessment is not commenced on time, the court can (on the application of the paying party) reduce or remove liability for interest.
She therefore finds that the advice I gave was far below the standard of advice that any other solicitor would give and therefore poor service.
[This despite the fact that had we applied for interest to be abrogated as she is now suggesting the client would have done, would have incurred him in expenses, and resulted in him probably losing the application, because the detailed assessment was undertaken at a time which HE HIMSELF AGREED as an extension! He was also late in putting in his Points of Dispute, again by an agreed extension. And we are talking a couple of weeks]
I telephoned her and asked why, in essence she was spouting what the complaining client had told her, without any independent enquiry. She said she read the court rules and they were clear. I tried to explain that court's don't just read rules in the way a man in the pub would, but consider a whole host of factors including case law and then exercise their discretion. I started quoting the incipitur rule, but her basic premise was I should have (despite not being asked, not being paid to do so) explained each and every nuance to this client in full.
Trying to reason with her was a waste of time - she just read off her script "you don't have to agree with my findings, but as I have found there to be poor service it is your decision whether to try to reach a settlement or request a formal ombudsman decision" - she said the same words over and over which suggests this is their "training" in conciliation.
Marvellous - I'm now being second-guessed, criticised and told to pay hundreds of pounds in compensation by a woman who probably used to work in the Council Tax department.
It would be hilarious if it
It would be hilarious if it were not true. Sadly it is and I am not surprised.
And I didn't even mention
And I didn't even mention that we had in fact raised the question of interest inter partes, when serving points of dispute and would have raised it at the hearing when the judge would have had discretion anyway. The only reason we didn't raise it is because the client sacked us and settled it himself (on a global sum figure including interest).
Of course that then leads you
Good on you DomCoop. If your advice on interest is not 100% the right advice to give to a lay client (are we allowed to call them lay clients?) then God help us all. We're doomed!
Legal Services consumers feel intimidated by jargon
This is an unhelpful article for anyone interested in the subject matter. There is no link to the "survey published today" nor even a clear statement of who carried out or who published the survey.
If impenetrable jargon is a characteristic failing of lawyers a characteristic failing of journalists is to base articles on unnamed "surveys" "reports" etc.
What I got from reading the
What I got from reading the surveys in question (available on LeO website) was that:-
A significant minority of Complainers believed that the purpose of LeO was to advocate on their behalf and fight their corner from them (and that some even thought that they would take over their case!) NB This is for people who have ALREADY DEALT with the LeO, so that shows just how LeO staff clearly do not explain what their purpose is (and the inherent anti-solicitor bias they have).
That a "good" complaints handling service is provided by "o2" (the mobile phone company). This is because when the person complained to them, within 24 hours the "consumer" was given what he wanted (a different tariff). Bad complaints handling is provided by solicitors because they want to consider things properly and risk using legal knowledge in assessing complaints.
That solicitors are not particularly good at seeking out complaints and trying to diffuse them.
As to the latter, I genuinely think this is a bad thing. But that is in some measure down to the fact that the personal risks to us of complaints outweigh the likely benefit of having them resolved. Yes great, we have a grumbling client, let's get the senior partner to ring them up and have a chat and tell them about the Legal Ombudsman. They might think "Oh what a great firm they are, I'll tell my friends they can be trusted." Then again they might well complain to Legal Ombudsman and we'll end up paying "£200 for upset and distress" (on a £250 + VAT re-mortgage), plus a "£400 case fee" plus having our name published on the "name and shame" list. So no surprises why nobody rocks the boat with potential complainers.
Its really back to the Happy
Its really back to the Happy Meal then...it costs less than £600.
This job is just so much fun. About four hours to go till I can have a glass of wine.
3 hours 11 minutes and 21, no
3 hours 11 minutes and 21, no 19 seconds.
saltcod
LOL, it's all you can do really when you live permanently on the set of 1984, only it's worse than the book anticipated.
Good complaint handling
This from Voldemort's post above:
"The tendency of solicitors to be defensive when dealing with complaints justified or otherwise is currently being exacerbated because (1) the judges always blame the lawyers when things go wrong (2) the impact on PI premiums of even the most modest claims and (3) the feeling that solicitors in general have a perception that consumerism in the Law has gone too far and they are being overwhelmed by the sense that the SRA cares little for them in difficult times"
I agree very strongly with point number 3. I have worked in complaint handling myself for a big insurer and the contrast between the way financial complaints and legal complaints are caused and dealt with is very interesting. I think the LeO and all those concerned about legal complaints could learn something by looking at other industries.
In my experience, there will always be a very high volume of financial complaints due to the sheer size of financial businesses like RBS, L and G so on and so on. The systems of these businesses are set up to be consumer friendly but customers often have problems because they are treated like a number rather than a person. When things goes wrong it is very rare to find someone who will take ownership of a problem until things are escalated.
Law firms are generally much smaller and I wonder if complaints do not get resolved because they become too personalised. During the complaint process the complainant perhaps will deal with the solicitor who they think caused the complaint - or someone who works closely with them. The defensive attitude kicks in and the complainant digs their hills in when their complaint is not met with any empathy or any will to resolve it.
Having read many blogs on here I think there is problem in attitude to complaints and perhaps that is through a lack of experience or skill in resolving them. It is a skill knowing how to deal with the unjustified complaints, especially when they are personalised but it is one I learned some years ago. I notice many contributors (including Domcoop's story) cite the law and legal procedure to justify why a complaint is unjustified but I think they miss part of the point - and hence the opportunity to resolve some disputes.
When I first joined the insurer, handling complaints was very difficult. We had to refer every complaint to an insurance underwriter (these people were technically very sound but never spoke to the complainants) and we would tell them our proposal for resolving the complaint. The underwriter would lecture you for half an hour (using insurance jargon) on why the customer was wrong in insurance law and practice. For example, the complaint may have been about poor service during a claim and I would suggest the complainant was offered £100 because there was some justification for the complaint. The underwriter would then reject my suggestion saying that insurance policies do not cover consequencial losses! That was the mentality we had to deal with and I think it may be a similar situation in the legal profession now.
Anyway, subsequently we set up a separated dedicated complaints team where we were able to make our own decisions on each case and we always spoke to the customer who was complaining. Sometimes we would offer redress where perhaps it was not justified or the customer was wrong but we always had in mind the bigger picture and the need to resolve as many complaints as possible rather than them going to the ombudsman. Plus the cause of the complaints were not personalised or involved us which helped us be objective.
In some cases we would stick by our guns - particularly if there was evidence the complaint was not genuine or based on lies. There is a skill in dealing with those types of complaints too and it is all in the message you convey in the response. In many cases we offered no redress but the complainant accepted and even thanked us because it was the first time someone had listened and explained things to them. For me, it was an eye opener, seeing so many seemingly difficult cases resolved just by listening and explaining things.
Personally I think any decent sized law firm which handles complaints should employ dedicated complaint handlers - preferably from a mixture of backgrounds who can take a step back and appreciate the bigger picture and both sides of the argument. In Domcoop's case, and no disrespect to him - if there had been such a person at his practice they might have been able to find a way to explain more effectively why the complaint was not justified and headed off the referral to the LeO.
I would interested in any comments from the LeO because this subject is very interesting.
Jargon
The less jargon used the happier the clients are.You just need to be able to explain it in laymen's terms. All you have to do then is to hand them ANY SRA edict or regulation and see if they can understand any sentence in it at all!
Keeping it Simple
I am a real diamond geezer andI well like it when m' brief tells me what I want to hear
Only the other day he said something well random he said:
"Have you considered Bob Crow's new best seller " the application of the socratic principle to rational discourse- a lifelong journey" I said that although m' brief was well random I knew where he was coming from and he was not having a Giraffe"
Jargon and rules
In my opinion a solicitor who can explain complex legal concepts in laymen's term is a sign of someone who has really learned their trade. Jargon and legal speak is often used by those whose ability is more limited.
As for SRA regulations I actually think many of them are quite clear. The complaints you see on this blog are that they are too 'catch all' and open to interpretation. I have mentioned before the pitfalls of writing very specific and legalistic rules. The FSA rules for example are written in a way which allows them discretion and to ensure Mr Loophole does not come along and successfully defend wrongdoers who have found a new way to commit market abuse or fraud.
I always tell myself, "don't
I always tell myself, "don't rise to the bait". But just can't help it.
OK Kelly Matthews, here's your starter for 10:-
I could go on - the solicitors' rules are currently organised into a handbook consisting of "principles", a "code of conduct", "accounts rules" (of 52 different sections), "authorisation and practising requirements" (comprising 12 different sets of regulations, each set of regulations broken up into numerous sections ranging from 23 for the Practice Framework Rules to 3 for the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates Notification Regulations), "client protection" (5 different sets of regulations), "Discipline and Costs Recovery", "Specialist Services" and a "Glossary".
If you genuinely think that this is "clear", then I suggest you get on the telephone straight away as there is a position just ripe for you at the SRA. Director of Decreasing Unfairness in Libel Action Awareness Reviews perhaps?