We’ll publish all on complaints, LeO states

Can the Law Society actually do something useful for the millions it received each year and JR this decision? It's utterly ridiculous that complaints that have failed are nevertheless published!

I also assume that the data will only include cases the LeO has actually accepted as being capable of forming a complaint? Not just records of complaints? Anyone with an agenda or who didn't want to pay their bill could just make hundreds of complaints!

Another nail in the coffin for solicitors.

How about a complaint page for solicitors against false accusations which have been proved wrong, surely this will balance the books and not 'cook' them like LeO will be doing.

While im on the subject and will not digress, how about the false claims that people will make and the nature of them, again, being unbiased as I am im sure this will enlighten not only the profession but have an equal footing. Where there is smoke does ring a bell.

Consumer focus is one thing, outright stupidity is another.

There's a new name in town, guys--it's called "customer service". Get used to it because you're going to have to do it.

Clearly in the example with the beneficiary, the solicitor should have responded to enquiries.

One of the most common complaints against solicitors--and when will they ever learn?--is they don't communicate to clients and parties.

Sounds justified to me. And maybe the threat of publication will act as a deterrent and compel more open and better behaviour.

Oh lets all just accept that Sampson is one of the politically appointed great and good put there to receive lot of money for trashing the legal profession.

It's rather like any decision by such people-pandering to the victim culture in order to get paid.

How do you justify publishing the name of a firm, thus ruining their business AND publishing the name of the solicitor thus ruining the individual's career but not the identity of a vexatious complainant? Why publish the details of a complaint which was not upheld even on appeal? If you must publicly identify an 'accused' you MUST also publicly identify the 'accuser'.

Why does anyone continue to practice - its a worthless thankless job & you are all just whipping boys for your politically correct & biased regulators who need an ever increasing workload to justify their own existance.

It seems as no end of lobbying will stop the LeO publishing in one way or another.

So no good whingeing, just deal with it. The public are not that daft as to be unable to see through the crank from the genuine complaint.

Most law firms should already have google and twitter alerts for any mention of their firms name, good or bad, so as to confront any negativity head-on.

Would it be unreasonable for law firms to have access to the LeO website to write some counter balance where such firms have the misfortune or otherwise of getting on the list.

After all this is what happens with Trip Advisor. This right at least gives a balance to what on the face of it could be a damning comment.

And I'm sure the LeO would be the first to publish a list of complaints made against it -quid pro quo and all that.

Watch this space as they say

The LeO says "the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills had said there would need to be a ‘very strong case’ for the ombudsman not to follow the lead of bodies such as the Financial Services Ombudsman in transparency and openness."

If that is what BIS said BIS doesn’t know what it is talking about, and the LeO hasn’t looked.

The FOS doesn't publish the identity of the entity or the individual regulated person for each complaint or each complaint. Nor does it publish individual complaints. In the Ombudsman News it gives Case Studies in which the regulated entity is anonymous and which include more information about the complainants.

What it does do is publish statistics for each entity for whom they have more than 30 complaints in a year and also overall an industry average of complaints upheld. These are broken down by category, and in each category where there is a statistically significant data the %age of complaints upheld is given,. That is reasonably fair and perhaps more importantly actually allows a "consumer" to reach a reasoned judgement based on statistically worthwhile data.

It appears that the LeO is not going to do this, which is what it should, but is going to publish raw data which is of almost no value to the consumer but will no doubt be linked to and republished by anyone motivated to set up their own hate site, thereby reproducing ‘Solictors from Hell’ but using polite language.

My concern is that with rejected complaints what will be published will be the ostensible rather than the real "reason for the complaint".

Thus whereas instead of real reasons for complaint being given as
(i) client not paying attention to the advice that was given,
(ii) client wanting to use complaint as a means to negotiate down properly incurred fees,
(iii) client having irrational expectations, and
(iv) client hoping to receive windfall,
the "transparent" website entries will refer to ostensible reasons for complaint as
(i) solicitor failing to deal with client's instructions;
(ii) solicitor over-charging client;
(iii) solicitor taking on work beyond his expertise; and
(iv) solicitor not treating client with respect.

I have difficulty understanding how the LeO can believe that entries with such "reason for the complaint" will be "objective" as he mentions in his blog. What it will produce is an indelible connection between a named solicitor and a subjective complaint with very little "objective" information to enable the website visitor to ascertain the basis on which a complaint was rejected and whether or not this should give the prospective client something to worry about if he or she was thinking of engaging that solicitor.

I echo all the sentiments here. Publishing names of solicitors who have been the subject of a rejected complaint is manifestly unreasonable. Is it defamatory?

As complaints partner I continue to be astounded at the ineptitude of the staff employed by LeO. Not only do most of these people not understand even the basics of legal practice and regulation (one of these morons asked me where we kept client money!) but their conduct of a complaint would, if we behaved in this way, be the subject of sanction. Not sticking to their own time limits is routine, as is addressing letters to the wrong office despite receiving emails and letters from me with the correct address plastered all over them. As for making findings of fact which are directly contradicted by documents sent to them, well ........ In one case recently we were accused of not obtaining the client's signature to a trust deed despite the fact that we sent them a copy of the signed document!

It is difficult to see the attraction of practice as a solicitor when we have the likes of LeO doing its best to rubbish fundamentally good firms and individuals. the SRA piling on more cost and regulations with no thought to cost benefit and the High Street threatening to become a desert for individual firms seeking to provide a service rather than just earna fast buck from the consumer.

The whole process was, and is designed to do exactly as the anecdotes above show.

I have had some experience of the Financial Ombudsman Service in the past, and what you have to remember is that it is not intended to do what it says on the tin.

The idea is absolutely NOT to fairly resolve complaints, or any other rubbish that they may have printed onto their coffee mugs (at our expense - I guess we are the mugs).

Small and Medium sized firms will find it a struggle to deal with the system, because the system isn't designed with any consideration fo such firms.

The idea is for a mega firm, a Co-Op sized ABS. They will set aside, say £0.5million for a complaints budget. Out of this budget they will pay any compensation or redress, employe three or four staff to handle complaints.

When anybody makes a complaint, they won't look at it in any detail. They'll send £100 co-op vouchers as a gesture of goodwill. If the complainant still isn't happy, they'll chat to them nicely on the phone and sympathise.

If the complaint goes to LeO, they'll offer £500 compensation (i.e. the £100 vouchers plus the £400 complaint fee).

Thus, 70% of the complainants, valid or not, will go away. The other 30% can go to LeO, but it doesn't really matter what the outcome is, because it's not about complaints, but about PR.

Now when you look at it that way, you see that the result is that "customers" of large firms will overall end up feeling happy, because they'll be able to tell their mates in the pub "I got £200 off my holiday from Co-Op travel cos they messed up my conveyancing and forgot to pay the stamp duty". To the MOJ / SRA / LSB, etc this is much more preferable to "I had to pay a stamp duty penalty of £200 because the solicitor messed up the stamp duty. It's not fair, because they say they told me they needed funds off me to complete, but we thought the estate agent would deal with that. We complained, and they found in favour of the solicitors." This is even though the second statement may well be the correct one.

Publication of complaints, the structure and nature of the complaint fee, and the whole ethos of complaint handling at LeO (and at FOS) is all about the same thing - buy off the complainant early irrespective of the merits of it

It fair to publish decisions but the LEO should allow firms in appropriate cases to charge the client for wasting the firms time in dealing with ludicrous complaints designed only to avoid paying properly due fees!

The LeO may have a defence in privilege akin to reporting of proceedings if what they publish is merely a fair and accurate summary of the complaint received. However, the litigation privilege (extended to documents created/published in the course of disciplinary proceedings such as SRA/GMC etc) may not be extended where it pertains to publication of the outcome of an unfounded complaint.

I agree with the commenter earlier who suggested JR. I cannot see how this would survive a JR or Defamation claim. Inevitably, the names of 'innocent' practitioners involved in entirely unmeritorious disputes will be associated with complaints.

A cursory google of the name of a practitioner will lead to their association with these complaints and may unfairly lead to a drop off in trade. Seems like LeO could be facing claims from that, too (although causation would be difficult).

Either way, they are fcukers and the Law Society are feckless morons.

None, because all complaints, circumstances and claims will have been disclosed in the proposal form.

Further to my earlier post (20/08 at 17.21) I have now discovered what the Ombudsman is going to publish about us as I have received a letter from his office with a print of the intended entry. In one sense it is a relief to see how brief it is, but it does prove the point already made by many others that that very brevity makes it is impossible to understand anything meaningful about the problem the firm had with the client, the scale of seriousness (apart from the amount of compensation ordered, if any, which is shown) or the reasonableness or otherwise of the client themselves. It is difficult not to draw the conclusion that the publication will do nothing more than cause prejudice to the firms mentioned without assisting the general public to any meaningful degree. As has already been said, context is everything and there is no way that meaningful context can be communicated in the few brief words that the Ombudsman is going to publish. I'm no expert on JR, but rather than those willing to have a go having to do it (as suggested by Peed Off Solicitor above), it seems to me that the Law Society ought at least to be commissioning a QC's opinion on the possibilities for the benefit of the profession as a whole.

There is an obvious solution......each firm arranges to become a client of the firm closest to it........and then every firm complains about every firm......the register immediately becomes irrelevent.......as it features.....EVERY FIRM.......sweet.

Speaking of published complaints, I advise you all to look at the following link:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1158168/My-distress-allegation-Glastonbury-visit-Shelter-chief.html

What was the allegation? And what exactly was he doing at Glastonbury?

It's a monstrous proposal. Grossly unfair.