Janet Paraskeva argues it is time to stop the battering that the Law Society has taken for a history it has long put behind it


We will soon be discussing with the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner the Law Society's plans for building on the improvements we have recently achieved in dealing with consumer complaints. This is all part of our continuing quest to establish a system that is universally regarded as efficient and effective.



However, the question is what exactly is meant by 'efficiency and effectiveness', and what will constitute achievable performance targets?


Interestingly, our performance has been strikingly similar to that of other complaints handlers. It is illuminating to compare, for example, the complaints handling performance of the Law Society with that of the bar, which traditionally has been praised by the Legal Services Ombudsman and so has not been subject to the imposition of a complaints commissioner. Over the last year, in the key measure of case resolution in 0-3 months, the Law Society is only 2% behind the bar - we resolved 45% of our cases within three months, while the bar achieved a success rate of 47%.


The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is also regularly praised for its efficiency and it makes an interesting benchmark - it only resolved 44% of cases within three months. However, the FOS was better on its six months target, resolving 81% of matters within that period. Again our measure was not far behind the bar - we resolved 67% of cases within six months, the Bar Council, 68%.



The Law Society of Scotland does not measure resolution over short periods of time, but it does measure resolution of matters within 12 months. There it manages a 73% success rate - whereas we manage 89% and the bar 90%.



The Law Society is not complacent about its complaints handling work and we are working harder than ever to establish not just a satisfactory performance, but best practice and excellence.



Yet it is increasingly apparent that some of the criticism that has come our way - especially in the last year or so - has not been wholly fair.



Carrying the baggage of history is always a problem. In 1999 there was a backlog of more than 17,000 complaints, some of which lay unopened for up to a year. It was unsurprising that the then Lord Chancellor decided in 1999 to take reserve powers to appoint a Legal Service Commissioner to oversee things. But - as the figures for 2003 show - those problems are history and were already history when the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs decided to make use of those powers to appoint a commissioner last September.



Since then our performance has improved still further. Our ability to resolve matters within three months has risen to an average so far this year of 52%. On average, 70% of complaints are now resolved within six months, and 88% within 12 months. Our handling of telephone enquiries is outstandingly good. We have only a 2% abandonment rate compared with the national best practice target of 5%. The Legal Services Ombudsman herself is endorsing an increasing number of our decisions - a minimum of 60% over the last three months. With these kinds of figures it is difficult to know what is expected of us.



All in all, we are a high-volume business - but even that can be overstated. With almost 100,000 practising solicitors, we receive fewer than 17,000 complaints a year. A figure of 17,000 complaints is a lot, but as a percentage it is not. It is fewer than one complaint per solicitor every five years, a statistic that is particularly remarkable given the numbers of transactions performed by solicitors - some 15 million a year.



We will obviously look at the complaints commissioner's proposals with interest. She is after all planning to appoint - if we are to believe the recruitment advertising in the national press a few weeks ago - a team of four senior staff, at least some of whom will have teams of people working for them. Since any regulation is ultimately a cost to consumers it is essential that any expansion is no more than is proportionate and necessary.



We also have a concern about the conflict of interest that results from the appointment of one person to the posts of both ombudsman and complaints commissioner because it means one individual will be responsible both for setting the standards and for judging whether they have been met.



Clearly the ombudsman/ complaints commissioner herself recognises this is an issue, since she is considering appointing a director of operations to be responsible for the day-to-day work of the complaints commissioner.



Where the Law Society fails to meet targets set the complaints commissioner has the power to fine the Law Society. In such circumstances this conflict is clearly a worry.



Whatever our doubts about the justification for appointing the complaints commissioner, the commissioner's office is now part of the legal framework and the Law Society will be conscientious in working with her. And there is certainly work to be done if we are to become the organisation of excellence we are striving to be. But it is also time to inject some reality into the situation and to put a stop to the continual battering that the Law Society of England and Wales has taken for a history it has long put behind it.



Janet Paraskeva is the Law Society chief executive