The Office of the Legal services Complaints Commissioner is working hard to keep standards high in the run-up to the creation of the independent office for legal complaints, finds Neil Rose

The Office of the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner (OLSCC) is a curious body. Though to some it was an organic development in the oversight of the handling of complaints against solicitors, it must be rare for the government to create a body with the sole purpose of watching over just one part of one professional body’s regulatory work.


On the top floor of a tower block in the centre of Leeds are 20 people who do just that, although they do not appear to reflect much on this unusual role. ‘We’re in existence because Parliament decided we needed to exist,’ says the commissioner, Zahida Manzoor, simply.



Under her stewardship, the OLSCC’s civil servants are charged with probing and pressing the Law Society, in the main the Legal Complaints Service (LCS) – setting targets and ultimately imposing financial sanctions if it fails to deliver what, in their view, constitutes a modern, consumer-focused complaints-handling system. ‘Effective’ and ‘efficient’ are the words repeatedly used by Ms Manzoor and her staff, echoing section 52 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, which created the office but was initially not activated.



Of course, the OLSCC would not exist had there not been long-standing concerns among politicians and the public over the way in which complaints against solicitors were being tackled. Though performance improved from the dark days of the late 1990s, by 2003 the previous Lord Chancellor was not convinced enough had been achieved. ‘Unfortunately, in spite of all efforts, complaints handling [by the Law Society] is still not efficient and effective,’ Lord Falconer said at the time. Ms Manzoor was appointed a few months later, separate to her existing role as Legal Services Ombudsman.



The Act gives the commissioner powers to investigate, make recommendations, set targets, require plans and, ultimately, impose a penalty of up to £1 million or 1% of Chancery Lane’s income, whichever is the lower. Though the Law Society agreed complaints-handling targets with the government before the OLSCC was created, there were no available sanctions to focus minds. Now, in addition to that potential financial burden, solicitors fund two-thirds of the OLSCC’s £1.6 million annual costs. So, are they getting value for money?



When she unveiled her strategy in October 2004, Ms Manzoor laid out a three-year plan to improve complaints-handling – two years to make the necessary improvements and a further year to show these could be maintained. It is a timescale to which she has been unable to stick. ‘The reality is, the level of targets I’ve set have not been at the level I would have liked,’ she says. ‘This is down to the slowness of the LCS in changing, particularly its culture.’



There is no point setting targets the LCS cannot hit – so they are at a level that encourages progress, she explains.



Ms Manzoor says that, back in 2004, following scoping work done by PA Consulting, it was decided to pitch the office and its staffing levels at a relatively low level of engagement with the Law Society. ‘As it’s transpired over the years, we’ve needed much greater involvement with the Law Society’s complaints-handling management team, because they haven’t always had the management capacity in place.’ But despite the increased demands, the size of the OLSCC has remained the same, she emphasises, pointing out that the LCS and Solicitors Regulation Authority complaints budget has continued to grow, to more than £36 million currently.



In the early days relations with the Law Society were prickly, so much so that in May 2006 Ms Manzoor imposed a £250,000 fine (later reduced to £200,000) for Chancery Lane’s failure to deliver what she considered an adequate complaints-handling plan for 2006/07. The Society would regularly challenge her and threaten judicial review. ‘It was perhaps just people flexing their muscles,’ she suggests, ‘but we have moved a long way from that.’



It is clear that changes in the Society’s hierarchy have improved relations, but tensions remain – such as over how the LCS is dealing with complaints by sick miners, and the length of the process following which Ms Manzoor ultimately decided not to impose a fine over the LCS’s failure to meet its 2006/07 targets. Shortly after this interview Ms Manzoor issued a highly critical report over miners’ cases, to which the LCS took considerable exception.



She acknowledges that the seven months she took to decide on the 2006/07 performance was too long, but she attributes this to having given the three arms of the Law Society more opportunities to make representations than she was required to do.



All parties are now discussing ways to shorten the next process. This is particularly important given that the commissioner signalled her unwillingness to be so lenient should the Society fail to deliver the 2007/08 plan. One argument against a fine is that it diverts resources away from improving the handling of complaints and into the Treasury’s coffers, and Ms Manzoor reveals that she once suggested modifying the Act so she could instead direct fines money to specific areas of improvement. But this would have needed primary legislation, which was not available.



Ms Manzoor rebuts the oft-heard notion that she takes all the credit for any improvements at the LCS, although it is clear she feels many changes – such as the recently published service standards from the LCS and Solicitors Regulation Authority – would not have happened without her office’s work. ‘I give the Law Society an awful lot of credit,’ she maintains. ‘In many areas, they are doing a good job, but in other areas we need to keep our foot on the pedal together to make a difference. If we hadn’t set the targets, if we hadn’t pushed the Law Society, we wouldn’t have been an effective regulator.’



Les Courtnell, the OLSCC’s director of operations, points to the progress made in closing old cases as an example of the office’s ‘hidden work’. He says the LCS resisted a target set for 2006/07 to reduce the number of complaints more than 15 months old to almost zero, but ultimately it was achieved. By April, Mr Courtnell predicts all complaints – with a few conduct exceptions – should be completed in 12 months, with the majority closed within three months.



The OLSCC’s work breaks down into four main areas: negotiating with the Law Society to agree targets, initiatives and ultimately the Society’s complaints-handling plan, as well as identifying areas the office will investigate; recommending areas for improvement, new ways of working and how the LCS’s successor, the Office for Legal Complaints (OLC), should work; and monitoring the Society’s performance and reporting to government, stakeholders, the public and profession.



There are currently 35 outstanding recommendations from the OLSCC on how the LCS can improve its work, which can be turned into targets if the OLSCC is unhappy with the response. Regular audit reports also suggest improvements. The LCS is only single-digit percentage points below those targets it is not currently hitting – a considerable advance on previous years. ‘In all of the areas where targets have been set by the commissioner, there has been improvement,’ says Mr Courtnell. ‘But the quality targets [there are also targets relating to timeliness and performance] still look at process. We are moving towards looking at the consumer experience in the round and at value for money.’



Mr Courtnell says the OLSCC has been recognised by the National Audit Office for designing best practice systems in costs control, and there has also been a focus on developing staff, with all the auditing personnel now accredited by the International Register of Certificated Auditors. But while the OLSCC proclaims its own costs control, what it perceives as a lack of such control at the LCS is becoming a major focus of its work. There is particular concern that nearly half of LCS workers are managers and support staff – that is, not on the front line actually dealing with complaints. Ms Manzoor is also unhappy about the LCS outsourcing some complaints-handling to specialist law firms.



Negotiations are currently under way with the Law Society over the contents of its 2008/09 plan, which is likely to include a target relating to costs control for the first time. Ms Manzoor says she has been ‘concerned about cost’ for a number of years. ‘There are a lot of inefficiencies,’ she claims.



Naturally, all this activity is against the backdrop of the creation of the OLC, which will open its doors in around three years time. The government is currently looking at projections that it will cost £20 million to operate (55% of the LCS’s current budget) – and the OLC will be responsible for complaints against all lawyers, not just solicitors. Some think this estimate is unrealistic.



Ms Manzoor says: ‘By setting targets and having a dialogue, the LCS will have a much better idea of its true costs.’ The government estimate works on a cost per complaint of £1,152, while a basic (and disputed) measure of number of complaints divided by budget puts the LCS’s cost per complaint at around £2,000. Anita Holmes, the office’s head of policy and performance, adds that they will also be setting some key performance indicators to underpin the targets and help the LCS identify the cause of the problems. ‘The reality is that any good, well-managed organisation will have these basic standards in place to be effective and efficient,’ she says.



These are two organisations that have the same goal, but somewhat different views of the way to reach it. Like the LCS, the OLSCC will cease to exist once the Office for Legal Complaints is up and running, but as they continue to butt up against each other – if not exactly like stags – over questions of effectiveness and efficiency, neither is operating like they are waiting for the chop.



Neil Rose is editorial consultant to the Gazette