Shamit Saggar backs the host of consumer bodies that have sprung up but argues that such entities would work best as lay-professional partnerships

The world is in thrall to consumers and their interests. Consumer bodies proliferate. In the legal sector alone, the Department for Constitutional Affairs has its own panel, now embedded in Whitehall's decision-making process.



Earlier this month, the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner announced her own consumer board (see [2006] Gazette, 9 February, 3). And, of course, the Law Society has established a lay-dominated Consumer Complaints Board (CCB) to take charge of policy and oversee provision of redress to consumers who have had poor service.



The average solicitor may groan at these developments, but the case for taking a consumer-driven approach to regulation and redress is overwhelming. The reason is the desire to rebalance the acute asymmetry between the consumer and the professional providers.


Consumers do not need a nanny state to make every decision for them, but they deserve a reasonable chance to interact with lawyers in a way that is increasingly common in other professions and public services. The winds of modern consumer culture have been blowing through the public services and industry, so we are where we are with public expectations.


The CCB brings expertise and commitment to its task. It presides over policy on redress at a critical time. We are on the brink of a once-in-a generation chance to get right the big questions about consumer-centric legal services. The CCB's purpose is four-fold:


  • To provide an efficient, effective and accountable redress service for consumers who complain about solicitors;


  • To increase the confidence of consumers and the public in the Law Society's Consumer Complaints Service;


  • To ensure that the lessons learned from complaints improve the service provided by solicitors and inform the activities of training, regulation and enforcement; and


  • To facilitate the best possible transition to an office for legal complaints, by focusing on the needs of the consumer and optimising the efficiency of the Consumer Complaints Service.



    • Making a difference involves delivering against challenging targets, and building a service that is at the cutting edge of consumer redress. It is essential that we obtain and promote lawyers' involvement in working towards a consumer-centric approach to redress, for two reasons.


    First, it is naive and stereotypical to assume that providers or professionals are bound to see things only through the lens of self-interest. Signs stating 'lawyers keep out' are guaranteed to disengage the bulk of the profession, who are supportive of a consumer-oriented agenda but often perplexed about how this will work in practice. It will also be likely to minimise the buy-in of those members of the profession who are still sitting on the fence in respect of reform.


    Secondly, 'consumer-only' bodies risk institutionalising differences of perception. There should be no presumption that lay and professional interests cannot work together effectively in problem-solving mode.


    My own experience with the CCB indicates the opposite. A rough-and-ready test is metaphorically to close one's eyes at CCB meetings and try to work out whether it is a solicitor or lay member who is speaking. My early findings are that almost all sectional hats have been checked at the door where, to my mind, they belong. So it is disappointing that there are no practising lawyers on the complaints commissioner's board.


    The way forward is through an informed partnership of consumer interests and professionals. That is the approach my board will take.


    And so in the next few months we will be consulting widely with both consumer groups and with professionals about our priorities and the work ahead.


    Shamit Saggar is the chairman of the Law Society's Consumer Complaints Board