There are better methods than publishing complaints records to improve client service in the legal profession, writes Helen Davies


Providing high-quality client care is an essential part of a solicitor's practice - enshrined in rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Conduct. A solicitor's ability to respond positively to client complaints is a tangible expression of their professionalism.



However, the Legal Complaints Service (LCS) receives nearly 20,000 complaints annually regarding poor client service. While, this year, 20% have not been upheld, the numbers imply room for improvement. The Law Society, as a representative body, is committed to assisting the profession achieve this.



How best can we improve client service and reduce the number of complaints? Populist media supports naming, shaming and driving poor service providers out of business. But these issues are not unique and a review of well-established complaints-handling agencies within the UK and globally clearly shows that there are more sophisticated and effective methods.



In Australia, for example, regulatory and complaints bodies provide written guidance for both solicitors and clients on issues of client service, communication and complaints-handling. Increasingly, there is a trend among ombudsmen across the world to build the capacity of the service providers they oversee to deal with complaints effectively, with publication of adverse findings left to only the most serious cases of maladministration.



The success of this capacity-building has seen it adopted in more commercial areas of service provision, such as telecoms and banking. The UK Financial Ombudsman Service provides a telephone helpline for both clients and providers to help them resolve disagreements before they become formal. It also publishes clear written guidance on how to make and respond to a complaint so that both parties can see the standard expected of each other. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, meanwhile, provides model complaints-handling procedures and best-practice advice on administration. Other possibilities include auditing and accrediting complaints-handling processes and even instituting awards for outstanding client service or complaints-handling.



The LCS offers written information on how to complain and has a well-resourced complaints helpline for consumers. But there is no written guidance for solicitors on service standards or complaints-handling and very little information on what processes the LCS itself uses to handle complaints. There is a separate helpline for solicitors, but it is only staffed by one person and operates for limited hours. It is not advertised on the LCS's website except in a consultation document which canvasses its abolition.



Otherwise, far from providing leadership for solicitors in building their capacity to handle complaints effectively, the LCS has failed to make any positive proposals.



Instead, the LCS is tempted by the populist approach of naming and shaming by publishing complaints records. It is dedicating resources to exploring a number of options for publication, even though the chairman of the LCS board, Professor Shamit Saggar, has admitted that the vast majority of consumers would not use a complaints record to select a solicitor (see [2007] Gazette, 25 October, 14).



He acknowledges that the question of what and how to publish is fraught with risks for both solicitors and clients, and that there may be a number of unintended negative consequences. But formal consultation on the proposals is set to take place in the New Year.



Offering merely to name and shame or maintain the status quo is an abdication by the LCS of its role in enhancing the experience for clients using legal services in this country. Surely, in the light of international experience, it is time to have a full and sophisticated debate on how to actually improve client service and enhance complaint-handling capacity within the legal sector.



Helen Davies is chairwoman of the Law Society's representation board