As the association of personal injury lawyers unveils its new kitemark, Jon Robins assesses whether such badges of quality influence the way clients choose their lawyers

‘We live in a society that shamefully ignores its vulnerable citizens. It is important that the lawyers who come to our aid in a time of deep trouble are decent and honourable people with proper credentials,’ said the author Nina Bawden last week. She was talking at the launch of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers’ (APIL) kitemark to demonstrate the quality of its accredited lawyers, which is to be accompanied by a nationwide publicity blitz to steer accident victims away from unregulated claims companies and towards qualified lawyers.


It is rare for a lawyer-led campaign to receive such distinguished celebrity endorsement but, sadly, Ms Bawden has first-hand experience of the trauma that accident victims have to deal with, and the vital role a decent lawyer can play in obtaining justice. She was injured – and her husband died – in the Potters Bar rail crash in 2002. So Ms Bawden was speaking from experience when she said: ‘You always think accidents happen to other people. Nothing prepares you – not life, not literature. Obtaining compensation for injury rather than death is more like an obstacle race.’


While the APIL project has the backing of the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) minister Baroness Ashton, her own department seems less enamoured of lawyers’ accreditation schemes. A NOP survey of 1,060 consumers who needed legal services revealed that the Law Society and Legal Services Commission (LSC) quality marks influenced choice of lawyer in just 1% of transactions (see [2005] Gazette, 1 September, 1).

The survey was conducted for a DCA scoping study looking at how to conduct research into the methods by which consumers can identify quality in legal services. It took a broad sweep of accreditation, looking at the rank of Queen’s Counsel for the elite of the bar; the 14 Law Society panels and accreditation schemes; LSC quality marks; as well as practice management standards, such as Lexcel for solicitors and Barmark for barristers.


The kitemarks might have made little difference when it came to consumers selecting their lawyers, but there was recognition on the part of the public: more than one-third were aware of silk status (34%), and 26% knew of the Law Society’s panels. Only one in 20 individuals was aware of Lexcel, however, while Barmark was recognised by 10% of individuals.


‘If the reality is that kitemarks as they stand are of limited value to customers, then (given the cost of setting up and running the quality mark schemes) an obvious question is whether the results justify the costs,’ argued the report.


So why is APIL flying a new kitemark? President Allan Gore QC draws a distinction between the ‘kitemarks of specialism’, such as their new scheme, and generalist quality accreditation: ‘What the DCA study did reveal is that consumers may be disadvantaged by the lack of information about quality within the marketplace, and, in that respect, kitemarking may be of benefit to the public,’ he says. ‘Indeed, that is why the launch of our public information service has been welcomed by Baroness Ashton.’


APIL has commissioned its own research. According to a MORI survey published this month, three times more people would prefer an accredited, independent personal injury lawyer (41%) to deal with their claim, rather than claims farmers (13%). There are already some 450 individuals and 50 firms accredited under the College of Personal Injury Lawyers’ scheme, which was set up by APIL.


Family lawyers have criticised the DCA report, not least because Resolution’s own scheme appears to have been overlooked in the research. It has been running for five years and there are a series of specialist areas, from child (private law), where 800 lawyers are accredited, to international child abduction, where there are only 25. ‘It will be disappointing if they start to make policy on the basis of inadequate information,’ says Resolution chief executive Karen Mackay. ‘To ignore such a big scheme as ours suggests their initial work has been flawed.’


Accreditation drives up quality, but how important is consumer recognition to the success of a quality mark? ‘It is probably true to say that the scheme hasn’t been as public-facing as it could be’, acknowledges Ms Mackay. Last year, the then Solicitors Family Law Association re-launched as Resolution, and one of its aims was to have a higher profile. But the promotion of accreditation is not a straightforward issue for groups such as Resolution.


‘There is a tension, because if you say these are the specialists, then what are you saying about the rest of your membership?’ Ms Mackay admits. ‘There are people who are very good at what they do, but simply aren’t eligible for whatever reason. We don’t value those members any less than accredited members. It’s a tricky issue.’


Does accreditation only work if there is recognition of the professional group behind it? ‘Ultimately, that must be right and we would hope APIL will come to be recognised by the public,’ says Mr Gore. The barrister reckons that kitemarking sits comfortably with the role of APIL as an ‘organisation that puts the interests of injured people at the forefront’. He adds: ‘We are not a trade union. We are lawyers who are committed to advancing the interests of injured people, and we are committed to putting injured people at the centre of the process. That is what this campaign is about: providing the public with proper, independently audited information to enable them to make an informed choice.’


While the public might not pay much heed to Lexcel, apparently the accreditation is valued by firms. More than 550 law firms and public sector legal teams have now been awarded the quality mark ‘after demonstrating all-round excellence in the delivery of legal services’, as Lexcel puts it. Sir Stephen Lander, independent commissioner to the Law Society, recently surveyed law firms who hold Lexcel. He found that most firms considered it to be beneficial in improving client care (81%), as well as helping risk management (79%) and as a way of securing lower insurance premiums (69%).


‘There are a number of aspects to Lexcel, and I wouldn’t necessarily say public recognition is the most important,’ says Giles Watson, Lexcel manager. ‘The main purpose is as a business improvement tool. It helps you run your business, be more efficient, improve client care and cut down on mistakes.’


North-east practice Dickinson Dees, with 64 partners, is one of the larger Lexcel-certified firms. Why did it go for the Law Society’s quality mark? ‘In a world where people are demanding evidence of excellence and good management, Lexcel is something which people accept as providing evidence of that, when there is little else available to law firms,’ replies managing partner Neil Braithwaite.


Consumer recognition, in the way measured by the DCA report, is not an issue that greatly concerns a firm the size of Dickinson Dees. But he adds: ‘The public sector is extremely focused on kitemarks. It is also becoming a factor in other tenders we go in for.’


Mr Watson acknowledges that the DCA report findings are ‘disappointing’. He says: ‘Obviously we would love to have greater public recognition, but with our budget that isn’t realistic at moment.’ Accreditation schemes do not have a high profile in many other industries and trades, but they can remain an effective guide, he argues. ‘If you want a plumber, there’s a kitemark for a plumber, but you and I might not know what it is. But when you look at the Yellow Pages, you recognise that some plumbers have a badge and some don’t.’


But what do law firms make of the plethora of quality standards available to choose from? ‘I’m in favour of anything that improves quality, but I do not think that quality marks can be a substitute for looking at proper client service levels,’ says Kerry Underwood, senior partner at Hemel Hempstead firm Underwoods. ‘I also think that for clients and consumers, they are almost meaningless.’


Underwoods has the Investors In People certification and is currently aiming at Lexcel. Mr Underwood says he would like to see the Law Society promote a ‘gold standard’ of customer service, along the lines that his own firm runs. The firm will pay clients £50 if its staff members do not meet various standards, such as returning a call within a day, and the results appear on the firm’s Web site.


Do quality marks that measure practice management standards, like Lexcel , have a bearing on consumers looking for specialist legal advice anyway? Mr Underwood thinks they should do. But clients are interested in ‘quality of service and whether lawyers will stick to their quotes’ more than the evidence of specialist skills which they take as a given, he says.


Mr Watson agrees: ‘If you speak to most people about what they look for in a lawyer, it isn’t necessarily legal expertise, which is what the Law Society’s panels grade. The vast majority of complaints are about service rather than legal expertise, which people take for granted they’ll get.’


City commercial practice Fox Williams has the Investors in People accreditation and was also recognised last year in the best small companies category of The Sunday Times’ list of the top 50 companies to work for. Such awards are more useful in attracting new lawyers to a firm rather then clients, suggests senior partner Tina Williams. ‘They can see that those kitemarks result from discussions with existing employees, who must therefore be happy, and so they think “this is a well-ordered firm and probably somewhere where I would like to be”,’ she says. ‘In the war for talent, accreditation is very important for us.’ Ms Williams also says that existing staff ‘feel valued when their opinions are sought by independent organisations’. But she is not convinced that would-be clients ‘spend much time skimming the notepaper’ to see what kitemarks a firm has. ‘In fact’, she says, ‘I am positive of that’.


Jon Robins is a freelance journalist