Shamit Saggar debates the tricky issue of whether to publish solicitors' complaints records and looks at th effect this could have on conciliation


The first steps taken by the Legal Complaints Service (LCS) to investigate the possibility of publishing legal complaints have thrown up some food for thought.



Recent weeks have seen preliminary desk-based research regarding the publication of complaints carried out with consumers, the profession, and stakeholders to capture their hopes and concerns to inform thinking.



Unfortunately, we are not in possession of most of the information they require, and could not deliver the whole package. We can, however, take the first important steps.



The view of consumers is not constrained by what the LCS can provide – they are informed by the wider world. They are seeking to be able to make easy comparisons between firms in a ‘one-stop’ environment. Consumers are looking for a price-comparison website – detailing how much a service, for example conveyancing, will cost, and how long it will take, at each firm of solicitors. They want positive indications as to who is good or bad, ideally organised in the form of league tables or ratings similar to those produced by OFSTED. Certainly, such a tool would be fantastic for the consumer. It would really improve competitiveness, be a great marketing opportunity for firms, and would shape the profession in the same way it has shaped and driven demand in schools.



The majority of consumers pick a law firm based on recommendation, and may not therefore be researching a firm and its competitors before they commit.



At present, only 7% of consumers use the Internet to pick a solicitor, but a few years ago hardly anyone used the web for this purpose. Consequently, an Internet-based complaints record may not heavily influence consumer choice to begin with. However, there is no doubt that consumer behaviour changes over time as awareness grows.



The LCS is keen to avoid league tables and ratings. We accept it is not possible for us to rank a firm in its entirety based only on the small section of the work we see. However, it is important that anybody reading our complaints records can differentiate at a glance between those firms with a good record and those with a bad one. Firms are keen to ensure the whole profession is not criminalised in one effort, and have suggested that we have a tolerance level for complaints – and that only complaints above that level are published. We will consider as to how we can do this. Sometimes, less is more.



There are sometimes unexpected consequences with what we do, and concerns have been expressed as to whether publishing complaints could drive firms to exclude difficult or vulnerable clients through the worry of them raising a complaint. In reality, the legal access for vulnerable clients has been shrinking for several years as firms pull out of legal aid, and many firms will cherry-pick clients in any event. However, we will commit to looking at whether our actions could make matters worse, or, worse still, penalise those firms that are still willing to take on the clients others may turn away.



Whatever information is published, it is vital that it is put into context. This could be from the perspective of size of firm, type of law, number of matters and so on. In particular, firms dealing with vulnerable consumers must not be overtly penalised. We will look at what information is available to assist us in getting this right, and may build different models to consult on.



If information is to be useful, it needs to be clear, accurate, relevant, and quick to digest. Consumers would like all information in one place. People would find it too difficult to absorb information from a range of different websites regarding complaints and conduct; they would prefer to be able to find all the information they require in one place.



It is also important that complaints information should not become too dated. Complaints must have a shelf life – if they stay on a firm’s record forever, they could generate a disincentive to improve. How long that shelf life is would need to be debated. One idea floated to date has been to start with a clean sheet…



Much of our resolution at present is done by conciliation. More than 50% of complaints reach a conciliated settlement. Concern has been expressed both by members of the profession and LCS staff that firms may be less likely to conciliate if a complaint is to be published, and may push for adjudication in the hope it is found unjustified. If conciliation rates fall and adjudication rates rise, the cost of the service will rise and the time taken to resolve a matter will increase, reversing a lot of recent hard work.



Obviously, an upside of publishing conciliated complaints is that firms may resolve more matters in-house, which meets our objective of reducing the number of complaints arising from the legal profession overall. Predicting behaviour can be difficult when there are choices but our project accepts that these can be anticipated in large part.



It is important that any changes we make have a positive effect on the market, rather than a negative one.



The LCS aims to give serious thought to all these findings and bring back options for formal consultation. Please take part. We look forward to hearing your comments.



Shamit Saggar is chairman of the board of the Legal Complaints Service