Sir David Clementi has raised the crucial question of how a regulatory body should handle complaints.

Janet Paraskeva looks at three different proposed models

Among all the issues raised by Sir David Clementi in his consultation document about the future regulation of legal services there are three questions central of the shape of things to come.

One of them is how a regulatory body should handle complaints - a subject close to the Law Society's heart.

Improving our handling of consumer complaints has been, and remains, a constant concern for the Law Society.

We recently launched the Consumer Complaints Service to separate consumer complaints from the disciplinary investigation function and to deliver speedy consumer-focused redress to those who have received poor service from solicitors.

We also established a redesigned compliance directorate, which is developing a risk management approach to ensuring solicitors' compliance with rules and standards through investigation, enforcement and disciplinary action and dealing with complaints of misconduct.

Sir David has suggested three different models for the handling of complaints.

One approach - model A in his consultation paper - would be to establish an independent body that would handle all complaints about all lawyers.

Sir David compares this model with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), which handles all consumer complaints about financial services in the UK.

Another - model B - would be to allow professional bodies to continue to deal with all complaints against their members, subject to an oversight board.

A third - model B+ - would establish an independent gateway, known as the New South Wales model, which would categorise complaints, deal directly with those about service and delegate to the professional bodies all conduct matters.

A single organisation, independent of the professional bodies and dealing with all complaints about legal services might seem a good way forward, in that it appears accessible and attractive to consumers.

Such an organisation would be able to concentrate on securing solutions to service and minor misconduct complaints across the legal services framework and a uniform approach would encourage consistency across providers.

The FOS, with which Sir David compares his first model, has powers to charge financial advisers for the cost of handling a complaint against them from the moment the complaint is received.

That power is something that no doubt focuses the minds of financial advisers, encouraging them to deal with as many complaints as possible in-house.

The Law Society does not have such powers and can only operate a 'polluter pays' system, charging those solicitors against whom a complaint is found.

Whatever future model is chosen for complaints handling, this power could be very effective.

But it would be a major disadvantage if the complaints-handling body were completely separate.

It would remove any direct responsibility and involvement from the professional body in the management of the service and conduct of its members.

It would also risk losing important information links between the body dealing with service complaints and the body dealing with other regulatory functions.

The worry is that even where protocols were put in place, there would not be the same degree of openness or speed in transfer of information between two organisations, as exists within a single body.

Allowing the professional bodies to retain responsibility for complaints made against their own members, subject to the supervision of an overarching legal services board, could bring a number of benefits.

Such a system places on a professional body responsibility for the performance of its own members, and so gives them not only the incentive, but also the opportunity, to maintain standards in the public interest.

The work of the regulator as the dispenser of professional discipline must be shaped and informed by the information derived from service complaints, which this approach would guarantee.

The main disadvantage is that there may be a perception of bias.

So is the New South Wales model a useful compromise? In New South Wales they separated all complaints handling from the Law Society and established the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner, which now receives all complaints, handles those relating to service and passes back to the professional bodies those about conduct.

But New South Wales has a much smaller legal profession and therefore far fewer complaints than the profession in England and Wales.

There is a danger that, in a much larger environment, a gateway model, disconnected from the professional bodies, could lead to delay or difficulties in diagnosis, especially when there are hybrid complaints, combining both poor service and misconduct.

There are clearly advantages to each of the models and many further questions still to answer about each of them.

Where, for example, would the Legal Services Ombudsman or our Legal Services Complaints Commissioner fit into these schemes? Whichever model is pursued, one thing is clear.

It must be readily accessible and straightforward for the public, offer a range of effective solutions that are demonstrably fair to both parties and operate at a proportionate cost.

Most important of all, we need to ensure that it is effective and respected, and can promote public confidence in the high standards of the legal profession.

Janet Paraskeva is the Law Society chief executive