The Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP) wants law firms to tell clients how to complain not just at the start of a matter but again at the end.
On paper it sounds harmless. In practice it risks turning every closing letter into an open invitation to lodge a grievance. That may work in a public sector department with a budget for process managers. In a law firm that lives and dies by its client work, it is a distraction.
We are not starting from scratch. The profession already operates within a clear framework:
- The Solicitors Regulation Authority’s transparency rules require firms to make complaints procedures visible and accessible
- The Legal Ombudsman is there to handle unresolved complaints
- Every firm has its own internal complaints process
If a client wants to complain, the routes are already well signposted. Adding a second mandatory reminder at the end of every case risks creating the impression that complaints are expected, rather than available if needed.
High satisfaction does not equal a broken system
The LSCP’s own research shows that 87% of consumers are satisfied with the legal services they received. That is a healthy score in any industry.
It also says that only 51% of consumers know how to complain and that nearly a third would not raise concerns directly with their provider. That is worth understanding, but it is not proof that the system is failing. Sometimes people are happy. Sometimes they prefer to move on rather than take an issue further.
The suggestion that high satisfaction rates conceal a regulatory blind spot feels like searching for a problem to solve. It is a little like telling every diner how to complain about their meal just as they are finishing dessert.
The risk of a one size fits all complaints model
The LSCP is also backing a compulsory Model Complaints Resolution Procedure (MCRP) for the entire profession. The Law Society has already warned that this could cause practical difficulties and lead to unwarranted complaints.
Those concerns are valid. Standardising the process across every firm, regardless of size, client base or specialism, ignores the variety of practice in our profession. It will also create more paperwork, more compliance time and higher costs. And that cost will eventually be passed on to clients.
Regulation should be proportionate
Good regulation is proportionate, targeted and evidence based. It is not about adding layers of mandatory process in the hope that something improves.
If the aim is to ensure that clients can raise complaints easily and fairly, we already have the tools to achieve that. Clear information at the start of a matter, a visible and accessible procedure, and an escalation route to the Legal Ombudsman where necessary are all in place.
The solution is not to double up on prompts and risk turning the end of every case into a formalised complaints meeting.
We are a profession, not a department
The legal profession is not the Department for Work and Pensions. And the DWP is not a public complaints bureau, however much it might sometimes feel like one. Our role is to advise and represent clients, not to run a parallel grievance-handling service for the regulator.
If the aim is to build trust and confidence, focus on supporting high quality service delivery and fixing genuine problems when they arise. That will do more for consumers than any new round of forms and templates.
Complaints about my behaviour, or the tone of this article should be addressed to my mother, who has been handling these, on my behalf, since 1971. She prefers email to phone calls, especially after 6pm.
Anna Newport is solicitor and director at Newport Land & Law
No comments yet