I recently had the misfortune to have dealings with the supreme legal quango, the Legal Ombudsman. What is so concerning about this organisation’s approach to handling complaints is how it applies one rule for us and a different rule for itself.

Rather than, for example, requiring complaints to be in writing, it is content to deal with them on the basis of scribbled notes from a telephone conversation with the disgruntled client.

Rather more sinister is the demand to see my firm’s internal complaints file. Never in the time I have dealt with complaints on behalf of my firm have I been faced with such a request.

I take the view that the ombudsman’s scheme, with its raft of civil penalties for costs, compensation and the powers to compel disclosure of information and documents, makes the whole process civil in nature, and that my file is thereby subject to litigation privilege.

I cannot expect my staff to be open about a complaint if they know that every word of their reply will be picked over by the ombudsman.

Typically, the ombudsman has not explained why the file is wanted and what issue it seeks to address by the request. This case may yet be subject to judicial review.

The irony of course is that, even if successful, the profession will ultimately bear the cost of the exercise. Bureaucrats neverpay for their mistakes.

Julian Gibbons, Solicitor and notary public, Norton Peskett, Great Yarmouth