Watchdog calls for Ombudsman to be opened up to third parties
Third parties should be able to complain about lawyers to the Legal Ombudsman, the Legal Services Consumer Panel has suggested.
It proposes creating a general right for third parties - those which are not a lawyer’s client - to complain, except in situations where it would ‘impair the proper pursuit and administration of justice’. Responding to a consultation on the LeO’s complaints scheme, the panel says the current rules are ‘too crude’ and prevent legitimate complaints being considered from almost all third parties.
It says there are ‘many situations’ where it is not just the lawyer’s own client who is affected, which can involve significant financial and personal consequences for those involved.
The panel suggests that third parties should have a right of redress in the following scenarios:
- Where legal work is intended to benefit consumers, but they are treated as third parties due to the nature of the contract or business structure, for example a remortgage when the legal work is arranged by the lender, and sub-contracting arrangements by unregulated businesses;
- Hounding tactics by lawyers acting on behalf of corporate clients;
- Bad treatment of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system;
- Non-contentious matters where both the client and third party lose out, e.g. a delay in a conveyancing transaction because the seller’s lawyer loses some paperwork causing detriment to the buyer (a third party);
- Personal information is compromised due to a data security breach;
- Beneficiaries when they experience problems due to a defective will; and
- Lawyers working on matters concerning groups of people where the work is arranged by another party on their behalf or in their name, such as leaseholders or unsecured creditors.
The panel’s paper states: ‘The current absence of this right to redress frustrates the intention of a contractual relationship with businesses on which consumers rely in good faith, and creates the possibility of lawyers falling outside the Legal Ombudsman’s jurisdiction by entering into complex business arrangements.’
It says lack of access to redress creates weak incentives for fair dealing and ethical behaviour, limits opportunities to learn the lessons from complaints, and frustrates government policy to promote alternative dispute resolution. Giving third parties a right of redress, it says, would bring the LeO in line with procedures adopted in other sectors, such as financial services, surveying, estate agency and utilities.
Commenting on the paper, panel chair Elisabeth Davies said: ‘If you’ve experienced poor legal services and suffered detriment then you should be able to obtain a remedy.
‘It’s wrong that some consumers cannot currently complain to the Legal Ombudsman due to technicalities which they don’t even know about.’
Davies said: ‘While in some situations the case for giving third parties the right to complain is clear cut, in other circumstances, such as the treatment of victims and witnesses, the arguments are more finely balanced.’
The full report can be found on the panel's website.
Comments
So every litigant in person
So every litigant in person who I have to remind constantly about compliance with directions, the fact that there claim has no prospect of success whatsoever and the fact that my client will make a costs application against them for tens/hundreds of thousands of pounds will have the right to complain about me to the LeO when they don't like my tone? Can anyone else see the problem here???????
I am required to fearlessly advance my client's case but now I have to worry about complaints being made against me to the LeO by people who don't understand the law and who think I'm trying to bully them when I try to explain they have no arguable case and if they continue to argue if they will be hit for massive costs!
A world run by quangocrats who have no idea of the reality of legal practice.
"their claim", even. Edit
"their claim", even. Edit function please!!
Complain about whom?
Yet again the focus is on higher standards or additional responsibilities for "lawyers" when the academic legal experts are predicting the end of lawyers and the rise of the "paralegal" as the prime deliverer of legal services supervised by a small number of lawyers.
As the only requirement to be a paralegal is being 18 years old or over with a pulse then surely the likelihood of receiving a poor legal service (even with good customer service) is significantly increased if a paralegal is delivering the service. I think the terminology is "joined up thinking" which is clearly absent from initiatives arising from consumer champions.
Time to play the 'blame' game?
Without having yet read the full report and referring only to conveyancing transactions. Will this mean that buyers and sellers up and down a chain could complain? How about potential tenants waiting to move into a property being purchased by the would be landlord? What about estate agents and financial advisors etc?
Even if this only goes as far as letting third party buyers and sellers complain (consumers), it could open up a whole can of worms for the Legal Ombudsman. As most conveyancers and estate agents are only too aware, there is nothing like a lengthy conveyancing chain for the parties involved to play the ‘blame’ game!
The law
Since when did the LSCP make the law? If you're a third party (ie, someone other than the solicitor's client) it is only in the rarest circumstances that the solicitor owes you any duty of care. If the transaction in which you are involved is delayed because of tardiness on the part of someone else's solicitor, you have no claim against that solicitor: your remedy is to tell your solicitor to pressurise the other solicitor into action. Similarly, in contentious matters, a party's solicitor does not owe a duty of care to the opponent.
The law is very clear on all this. It reflects the fact that the solicitor's duty is owed to his client, not to someone who is not his client. It not for the LSCP to change the law, which has already developed exceptions (eg Ross v Caunters) where they are appropriate.
Good news - third parties can complain.
Anon 10:22
"I am required to fearlessly advance my client's case but now I have to worry about complaints being made against me to the LeO by people who don't understand the law and who think I'm trying to bully them when I try to explain they have no arguable case and if they continue to argue if they will be hit for massive costs"!
No, you are required to advance your client's case fearlessly. However, that does not mean you can advance cases which have no merit whatsover, vexatious claims or use bullying and underhand tactics (sometimes mistakenly referred to as pre action protocol by solicitors) to hound third parties who do not understand the law into paying you and your client money. There are other examples in the reverse and I strongly suspect it is not your role to provide advice to your client's opponent about the merits of his/her litigation.
And dealing with regulatory matters and complaints is not just a question of who is right in law as I keep reminding people on here. It is about decency, common sense and being treated as you wish to be treated yourself. In that respect I have every confidence in the LeO in dealing with the rule breaking offenders.
I think it makes perfect sense that some third parties can complain to LeO. Had that been the case already tens of thousands of people would have rightfully been able to claim compensation.
Finally I suggest you read the SRA guidance on dealing with third parties as judging from your comments you might be regularly breaching them.
Here we go again................
Your ignorance is truly staggering.
First, I defend claims as can be seen from my post. If I defend claims then I cannot pursue unmeritorious ones, can I? Just because you have had a bad experience in a single area of law does not mean you understand one iota of either the law or any other area of practice.
Second, it is indeed my role to point out the merits and flaws in my opponents' cases. It's called litigation and that means testing the facts and the law in relation to those facts both in correspondence and at trial. If we just turned up to trial having not corresponded regarding the case, every hearing would be an utter mess. Cases are settled because of correspondence testing the weaknesses and strengths of each case. This saves everyone money.
Third, I have represented countless businesses where the claimant, nearly always a litigant in person but sometimes represented by a poor solicitor, has no idea or interest in the law surrounding his/her case, is unwilling to or incapable of cooperating with directions and does not understand that the legal system is not a forum for him/her to complain about their lives in general. Attempting to get them to see sense is nearly impossible. They then turn up to court, lose their case and end up bankrupt. Because I point out to them that they will lose, the reasons why and the amount of costs they will have to pay (all of which I am bound to do), they now get to complain about me and accuse me of "bullying" them for dealing with litigation in the usual way. They will be unsuccessful in their complaint, as nearly all are, but the time and effort it takes dealing with is a nightmare (and they will know this and do it out of spite).
Fourth, at which point during my post did I infer that I was breaching any guidance with regard to third parties?
Calm down dear
Dear oh dear.
Seems someone got out of the bed the wrong side this morning. I hope this is not typical of how you speak to your clients.
It seems you have misunderstood or distorted several of the points I made on this topic. I am not going to answer your points as some of them are silly. Try reading the post again and consider them in the context of the article.
If you are still struggling I'll drop by later and see how you are getting on. Also read the SRA guidance and things might be a little clearer for you.
'Bangs head against wall'
'Bangs head against wall' yes, things are silly and lawyers are nasty and smelly.
Can't take the heat? best not
Can't take the heat? best not go in the kitchen.
He/she may also want to read
He/she may also want to read the Practice Note issued by the Law Society which offers guidance on issues that solicitors should take into account in their dealings with Litigants in Person, including managing any conflict between their duties to the court and duties to their client, and other areas of sensitivity.
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/productsandservices/practicenotes/litigantsinperson/5059.article
Not needed
An extension of the Ombudsman's powers is not required for someone to seek redress in some of these cases - eg negligence in preparation of a Will where a beneficiary is affected. In others ,there are existing remedies open to the public - eg harrassment, data loss, professional disciplinary cases and so on. This is Regualtion Beyond Regulation and should be opposed by the Law society and also the SRA. It is nonsense frankly. Oh and who does the client (the actual client) complain to about the release of confidential information by a solicitor who has to deal with a complaint from a third party?
This is all getting daft. The same week I hear I'll soon be asking who in my firm is gay and of what ethnic origin.
Redress -
Anon 12:59
Well, in that case you might as well argue there is no point having an ombudsman at all as there are other remedies available to those who use it now. I was under the impression the scheme was an inexpensive and accessible service to resolve disputes and unclog the court system. Third parties will often be claiming compensation which as far as I am aware cannot usually obtain from the SRA. Are you saying that third parties (shall we use the ten thousand or so members of the public who were sent letters by ACS Law and other law firms as an example) should go to the courts to gain compensation?
If these people did take out claims no doubt then you will be complaining that the courts are clogged up with litigants and moaning even more about legal aid cuts.
Well, of course there is a
Well, of course there is a point to having an ombudsman. The point is to allow unelected bureaucrats to be paid large sums of money, establish more bureaucracy, tell professionals how they should be doing the job the bureaucrats have never done-and placate the people like you who hate solicitors.
The job's a good 'un-wish I had it-but not politically connected! Oh well, back to just trying to do a decent job for normal people!
Don't like being cross
Don't like being cross examined in Court - complain about the lawyer!
Unhappy that the other side won in a legal dispute - complain about their lawyer!
Sure they owed you no duty of care, sure they had to represent their client to the best of their ability which they did, but you feel aggrieved it did not go your way so why not just complain?
Surely everyone should be able to win all the time because we are all unique snowflakes and the only explanantion for your own failure is due to some fault by someone else.
Go the courts
Yes, Kelly, third parties should go the courts to obtain compensation, if they wish to waste their time and money. Then the solicitor defendant (who never represented them) can point out to the court that the third party has no cause of action known to the law, that allowing third parties to sue solicitors who never acted for them would subvert the entire scheme/process of civil law in this country and that the claim should be struck out with indemnity costs.
The situations in which third parties can sue solicitors have been carefully proscribed by the courts, for very good reason. Goodness knows why the LSCP thinks it has the power or right to disregard all of the relevant case law. If you want to read the relevant case law, look at Gran Gelato v Richcliff, Memery Crystal v O'Higgins, Frank Houlgate v Biggart Baillie and (in the context of litigation) Al-Kandari v Brown. For an unusual exception to the rule, see Dean v Allin & Watts. None of these authorities gets so much a mention in the LCSP's report. The position of disappointed beneficiares is different and is dealt with by White v Jones.
No-not our worst
No-not our worst nightmare-just good for a laugh!
And no SFH shouldn't have been closed down-freedom of speech is a good thing!
Spot on Stephen! Add to your
Spot on Stephen!
Add to your list:-
Received a debt collection demand?
Think a solicitor has taken on a case you don't think is justified?
In fact does any solicitor say or do anything you that you don't like? Complain against the solicitor!
If you were to look on a crackpot forum - Like Free Men On the Land - or for the more refined, the £86million profit making "Money Saving Expert", there are numerous posts by the sorts of third parties which will be complaining to LeO. There you will find millions of posts all of which involve variations on the same theme of "it's not fair you're being asked to pay the debt / car parking ticket / train fare / mobile phone bill / whatever. Therefore complain to the company involved, complain to the Office of Fair Trading, make a request under the Data Protection Act (forumites love the Data Protection Act for some reason - which escapes me totally), complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Whatever you do, though, don't try to make a plan for paying the debt".
Now they can add to their list "complain to the Legal Ombudsman about the solicitor, which will automatically:- a) cost them £400; and b) be published in an online register."
What I don't get about the usual solicitor bashing point of view - and never will - is why he/she thinks only high street solicitors should be closed down? For example, if a person were to write a Letter of Claim themselves (which they are perfectly entitled to do, and indeed encouraged by the Government to do), then the only comeback that exists is that the recipient can take action through the court IF court proceedings are commenced.
But if that person gets free - pro bono - assistance, then according to the mob on here, the lawyer working for free should be forced to refuse to work if it won't satisfy the "morals" of Guardian Newspaper readers OR be forced to pay £400 to the Legal Ombudsman if the recipient gets upset.
So my question for any of the regular anti-high-street-solicitor people on here is this:-
** Imagine you ran a legal services business, had trained for x number of years, had to carry indemnity insurance for £3,000,000 at a costs of thousands (probably tens of thousands) per year, pay practising certificates, etc, and have employees to pay.
What steps would YOU take to: a) implement your client's instructions; but b) avoid paying £400 to the Legal Ombudsman and having your firm's name publicised in a detrimental way?
(I'd also ask this question to the Legal Service Consumer Panel and the like, but I wouldn't want to burden the poor souls as they have a very busy schedule, and it would be uncouth for them to dirty their hands talking to riff-raff solicitors)
Kelly Matthews
Isn't she the same person as that prolific poster with the double barrelled surname?
Another Stick?
Yet another stick to be used against the profession. You seriously have to wonder about the mindset of the people making these proposals. Did they have it tough or were made to feel inadequate in a previous life or suffer from the small person syndrome?
Not only do I owe a duty of
Not only do I owe a duty of care to my client, I've got a duty to the world and its wife!
Perfect!
Would the last solicitor to leave the profession turn out the lights?
Not interesting at all-wish
Not interesting at all-wish it was.
And of course the poor old
And of course the poor old conveyancer, who deliberately refused to take calls from the Estate Agent and slowed down the transaction because he had been instructed to do so by his client, may not even get to be able to argue his 'defence' against said State Apparatchiks because of said client refusing to waive privilege/confidentiality...!
Whoever would want to now qualify as a Solicitor with these socialist idiots seeking to destroy the profession..?
You're making assumptions
You're making assumptions that in such a circumstance, the clueless caseworkers at the Legal Ombudsman would:-
a) understand what privilege was;
b) care, even if they did understand; or
c) accept that it would be a defence even if you could prove you followed instructions to delay the transaction.
These assumptions are not valid - particularly c) above, as the râison d'étre of the proposal IS to make the solicitor compensate the third party irrespective of the client's wishes (see the reference to "hounding consumers on behalf of corporate clients" and "poor treatment of victums and witnesses" - in these cases, the "hounding" would be for the client, the "poor treatment of victims and witnesses" must be to aid the criminal defendant")
As others have said above this proposal is not just stipid, it makes changes to law amd procedure that are so fundamental in nature, that it would surely be ultra vires the Legal Services Act for LeO to even think about proceeding with them.
These include:
1. duty of care owed to third party;
2. inability to fulfil the retainer, in case to do so puts risk of complaint;
3. abrogation of client confidentiality (which exists in the LSA) in favour of third parties - even their opponents in civil, family or crimimal litigation.
4. conflict of interest between solicitor (who doesn't want to pay compensation, a £450 case fee, vindictive publicity, increased insurance premiums and possible SRA action / intervention) and client (who has in litigation, probably fallen pit woth the opponent and wants their solicitor to pursue the opponent without regard to being upset)
5. Conveyancing or other transactions which are "subject to contract", where any party can withdraw without penalty; no longer the case as pulling out or delaying may give rise to a right of compensation for third parties.
If this is implemented (which it will be - Adam Sampson has made clear he wants more powers) then the Law Society should judicially review it. If they don't, I will consider doing so myself.
So glad I dont practice
So glad I dont practice anymore !!!
Third parties - more clarity needed.
O.K - so what have we learned from this debate and other recent ones on other articles which have prompted comment on third parties?.
- The Legal Services Consumer Panel through its suggestion/proposal disregards case law.
- Caseworkers from LeO are clueless who have no knowledge or care for the law.
- The Solicitors Regulation Authority act beyond their remit and decisions involving third parties are unlawful. (examples being Davenport Lyons and ACS Law)
I think that is a fair summary of the views here and on other LSG forums.
Whilst I have my own views, partly based on some interest of cases involving third parties and some experience of dealing with ombudsman schemes and regulators in other industries/professions, I am always interested to learn more about the set up here.
The overwhelming view here is that all the above disregard the law. But I wonder if perhaps the organisations mentioned above are actually bound by law in their jurisdiction and decison making? My guess is that like other schemes and regulators they may consider the law but are not bound by them and in reality, on a day to day basis the case law mentioned above may be considered largely irrelevant.
The SRA have rules and guidelines which have a section covering the treatment of third parties and have disciplined law firms after complaints made by third parties. The LeO see no problem in dealing with some third party complaints under their rules.
So, I would be interested in knowing, if Domcoop takes out a judicial review what his arguments would be, specifically when looking at the rules of SRA in relation to third parties and the remit of the LeO.
Are we saying that the rules and guidelines of these organisations which no doubt you will all have read are unlawful?
Or is it that there is nothing fundementally wrong with the rules and guidelines themselves but these organisations are placing their own incorrect interpretation and are going beyond their jurisdiction in the quest for greater powers?
Or is it really just a case that people here are getting confused about their functions and roles and think because this is the legal profession that the SRA and LeO have to act and think in the same way as a judge in a courtroom?
I would be interested in views on the possible conflict between the SRA rules and law concerning the duty of care.
Article on duty of care - although perhaps not that clear cut after all.
http://www.lambchambers.co.uk/docs/art4.pdf
Chapter 11 - Relations with third parties
http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page
I think it is important for me and other readers to know this so we can follow the main basis for your arguments.
on the positive side
This is an interesting story woven into the present legal landscape. With the advent of ABS, we are told that clients will migrate to the likes of the co-op for their legal services away from traditional solicitors. However (as it stands) the co-op cannot act for both parties in say a divorce or litigation and so we (the high street solicitor) potentially still have a client or we will see the rise in litigants in person. When the person on the other side to the mighty co-op loses or feels that they have been treated unfairly by the likes of the co-op (as the likes of the co-op will have to live up to their ethical brand values) then they will complain about the co-op. Co-op will not stand for having their brand tarnished and so will put massive pressure on this proposal to be scrapped. In a strange way, by surrendering the legal profession to outsiders, it has ensured that the legal profession (all-be-it in a different format) will survive.
The argument is simple: We
The argument is simple:
We know what our duties to our clients are. This is because before we accept a client, both we and the client mutually agree what we are going to do and how it will be done.
Not only do we not know what our duties to third parties are (or even who those third parties may be), we can not do anything to avoid the risk that those third parties will complain.
Being forced to take this risk - impossible to avoid, and not knowimg wjat the risk is - is unfair, particularly as it only serves to benefit people (third parties) which the law says have suffered no loss.
Get rid of the bad apples
Surely the objective is to stop those lawyers who are inefficient, continuing to be inefficient? Over my 25 years as a residential conveyancer I have been involved in hundreds of conveyancing transactions where a number of conveyancers have repeatedly provided a bad service. Losing documents, not returning phone calls, taking time off without proper delegation taking place or, in the case of one particular large volume conveyancer sending out the same computerised letter time and time again. The additional stress caused by those few is felt up and down a conveyancing chain. If this proposal, once properly thought through, puts a stop to that, it can only be good for all of the other parties involved and the reputation of the profession?
And you think more regulation
And you think more regulation will put a stop to that?
Having to spend time justifying why something you did was correct is going to help the transaction run smoothly and quickly? I'll believe that when I see it-which I won't!
Ombudsman
I have read what DomCoop and Kelly Matthews, in particular, have written.
The Legal Ombudsman is able to make awards of up to £30,000, a significant amount for many firms, and has a very wide discretion as to how a decision is made. In particular, the ombudsman “will determine a complaint by reference to what is, in his/her opinion, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case”. Furthermore,
“In determining what is fair and reasonable, the ombudsman will take into account (but is not bound by):
a) what decision a court might make;
b) the relevant Approved Regulator’s rules of conduct at the time of the
act/omission; and
c) what the ombudsman considers to have been good practice at the
time of the act/omission”.
Allowing the Legal Ombudsman to deal with third party claims is a decision which ought not to be taken lightly. Notwithstanding what Matthew says, I suspect though that it will happen.
DomCoop Re £400 charge, see
DomCoop
Re £400 charge, see Chief Ombudsman's blog
"Simply put, Parliament put in place some rules so that if a lawyer has cooperated with us, and also done all they could to remedy a complaint at the first tier, we can waive our £400 charge. And it seems that, quite often (though by no means a majority of the time) we do waive this charge"
http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/blog.html
I think you should also read this article by Louise Restell before you start launching judicial reviews...
http://blog.qualitysolicitors.com/2012/06/08/sticking-your-head-in-the-sand-doesnt-stop-the-tide-coming-in/
1) a) "Quite often (though by
1) a) "Quite often (though by no means a majority of the time)" - says it all.
b) to even be eligible for waiving, you have to show that a) you are successful AND b) you did all you could to resolve the issue. - scheme rules 6.3 (I prefer to refer to rules rather than blogs). see http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/downloads/documents/publications/OLC_Scheme%20rules_v1_201104-1_FINAL.pdf
Of course, the default position is that even if you were successful, the very fact that the complainant got to the Legal Ombudsman suggests that you didn't do enough to resolve the complaint (read the section on LeO website where they give outcomes of cases. In more than one they find in favour of the solicitor, but still award "redress" of £50 or so, to cover the "upset and distress involved in making a complaint").
2) Louise Restell, of Louise Restell Communications Limited, is a PR Consultant, and is entitled to her own opinions (as I am mine). The basis of the Louise Restell Communications Ltd blog post, which you quoted, doesn't mention judicial review.
Instead it does not really say anything, other than criticise lawyers (which I find surprising given that she is paid to write this stuff by a Claims Management Company who refers its' cases to lawyers.)
If I were mischeivous, I could even start linking to this blog post in a campaign along the lines of "Quality Solicitors don't believe that solicitors add value, and that most work should be done for free" etc.
She makes a direct reference to one of my comments, and I shall make a direct response. She says that I am one of the lawyers who still don't realise we are providing a service.
Absolute drivel. I aim to provide the very best service to my clients, at the best price available. What I object to (which funnily enough the PR Copywriter didn't allude to) is being obliged to provide a service to random third parties.
I also object to useless quangos, which she takes issue with, but as someone whose CV includes spells at the New Opportunities Fund, Investors in People UK and - you've guessed it - the Law Society, I suppose one doesn't deliberately cause the gravy train to stop.
(Especially when a lot of your work involved being paid to give talks to the Legal Services Board and the Legal Services Consumer Panel).
I would suggest Louise that you do your job, and I'll do mine. If I'm bad at my job, and give "poor service" then I won't have a job (as I am unable to name drop Labour Cabinet Ministers, or Trades Union regional conveners).
Domcoop bashing
Doomcoop
Great entertainment here today. You got a bit of a hand bagging in that article and I found the references to your quotes very amusing. No matter our differences of opinion - you are a legend on here.
Derrr! The article is by the
Derrr! The article is by the competition!
Quality Solicitors
Just checked them out. Happy clappy solicitors.
To be honest I think I prefer the miseries on here.
There you go Kelly Matthews.
There you go Kelly Matthews. Danny Beach (the person spamming these forums with links to his website) has a grievance, because he operated land without the correct planning permission. He appealed to the Council, lost, appealed to the planning inspector and lost.
This is the sort of person which you, Louise Restell Communications Ltd, and the Legal Services Consumer Panel think should have the right to complain to the Legal Ombudsman.
Not just about his OWN solicitor's actions (NB Mr Beach admits that it was a barrister who presented his case anyway, and not the solicitors, so you might want to clarify why it is that the solicitor is getting the blame here).
But about third parties. In this case it is the in-house legal team of Runnymead Borough Council. They would have to pay a £400 case fee for each solicitor complained about; plus they would have to pay for hours of employees' time to respond to and deal with the complaint. All because somebody wasn't allowed by the law to do something they wanted to do.
And when Runnymead Council are over with, the next stop would be the barrister for Runnymead Council (who had the audacity to ask him and his son questions that they didn't want to answer).
And when that is done with, why not the legal department of Surrey Police (he doesn't like the fact that the Council asked the police to attend on standby in case there was any trouble when their officers went to fulfil their statutory duty to inspect the land).
And then, we also have Surrey Fire Brigade's Legal Department, because they are - along with a firm of solicitors - involved in a well-planned deliberately orchestrated conspiracy to harm the (without planning permission) business of Mr Beach (of all the people that these state organs and private solicitors could conspire to pick on, it isn't clear why Mr Beach has been chosen, maybe it was just at random).
And one of the blog posts on Mr Beach's delightful website even gives details of explosives that would be suitable for killing any local council official who inspected again! Marvellous!
But hey, behind every misfortune in life there is a bogeyman solicitor hiding, isn't there?!
The Legal Ombudsman
I don't think removal of posts has anything to do with freedom of speech or defamation. Personally I have not come across unjustified removals when the posts have been on topic or at least have some relevance to the article. In my opinion LSG operate a tolerant moderation policy and I think if posts have nothing to do with the article and are disruptive they should be removed. It is unfair on the people here who do wish to discuss the articles constructively.
As for Domcoop's comment, as a matter of fact I do think third parties should be able to bring their cases to LeO. Many of these protracted disputes are really unsuited to a fair hearing or satisfactory resolution in court. At least in theory the LeO is impartial, informal and has casehandlers who can look at the evidence thoroughly and objectively. Despite what Domcoop might think, many of these case handlers have the skills to deal with very difficult disputes and exceptionally challenging people. More important than a having a legal background.
The fact of the matter is, many people who have long running disputes have taken things to extremes because no one has ever properly listened to them. Quite often though, these people will accept unfavourable decisions if the person dealing with their complaint has shown he//she has listened and understood it. Sometimes that is all these people want but what you see above is the unfortunate consequences of being ignored.
The "case handlers" at the
The "case handlers" at the Legal Complaints Service "solved" complaints by bullying the solicitors into paying money to the complainant-because hey, they had targets to meet and after all it wasn't their money.
The same will, and probably does happen at the LeO-after all they're the same people.
Online mechanism
There is an online mechanism to warn the public about "rogue" solicitors. You go to the SRA's website and use the section entitled "check a solicitor's record". You can also go to the SDT's website and read recent judgments of the SDT. Solicitors who have been found guilty of dishonesty will almost certainly have been struck off anyway.