Reporting the names of lawyers and law firms who have been the subject of complaints by the public will disproportionately affect sole practitioners and black and minority ethnic (BME) lawyers, according to the Law Society.

Responding to the Legal Ombudsman’s (LeO) consultation on whether its decisions should be published, Chancery Lane said that only anonymised case studies should be published.

It said data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority indicated that sole practitioners; lawyers who qualified at the bar; BME firms and Nigerian and Indian lawyers are subject to a higher number of complaints, although the reason for this is unknown. The Society said these groups would therefore be disproportionately affected if details of complaints were published.

The Law Society’s response said: ‘It is important to remember that lawyers frequently deal with people who have significant mental disabilities, are under considerable stress, do not understand the full ramifications of the law or, in a small number of cases, are simply malicious’.

The Society said it was particularly concerned by the proposal to name firms even where they had been found not to be at fault. It said: ‘It is highly likely that the mention of a firm’s name on the Legal Ombudsman’s website will be enough to dissuade clients from using them, and will damage the firm’s reputation regardless of the facts of the case.’

Chancery Lane also warned against the publication of all decisions where a remedy was provided, saying it would lead to an overwhelming amount data that would not necessarily be helpful to clients.

While it recognised that publishing solicitors’ and firms’ names may give the impression of greater openness by the regulator, the Society said it would not outweigh the disadvantages to firms or provide benefit to clients.

‘However, we do believe that providing examples of settlements and information on the levels of compensation for distress and inconvenience would be helpful both to manage client expectations, and to help solicitors come to a fair offer when trying to resolve a complaint,’ the Society said.

It said: ‘It is important to remember that a single decision against a firm is highly unlikely, of itself, to say anything about the firm’s competence or its ability to handle complaints.’

The Society said it recognised that the Legal Ombudsman has a role in helping clients who have a complaint, and to help them understand what might constitute poor service, and what they can expect from a lawyer.

It said: ‘We believe anonymised case studies provide a powerful tool for clients to use to assess whether their complaint is likely to be upheld and to assess whether the remedy offered by the solicitor is appropriate… We do accept that some firms have an unacceptably high level of complaints made against them. We do not aim to protect or justify solicitors who consistently provide poor service to clients.’

The Legal Services Board Consumer Panel recently backed the publication of complaints made against law firms if they have been upheld.