The Legal Ombudsman has given its strongest indication yet that it will publish case decisions in full – but not until next year at the earliest.
The complaints handler consulted earlier this year on changes to its publication policy, potentially moving away from only publishing data about complaints to publishing full details of each case.
The organisation currently publishes details of selected cases only where there are public interest issues or opportunities to learn from law firms’ mistakes.
In the drive for greater transparency – for which consumer groups are lobbying heavily – this is no longer considered sufficient. While LeO has yet to formally respond to the consultation, it published a question-and-answer article yesterday with chief ombudsman Phil Cain where the proposal was strongly endorsed.
Cain rejected the argument that publication could unfairly affect some legal service providers and said the current policy of publishing data was not enough.
‘It’s important to remember that LeO is one of the very few ombudsman schemes that does not already publish its ombudsman final decisions in full,’ said Cain. ‘This is standard practice across a lot of sectors, so what we’re proposing is bringing LeO in line with that.
‘The data is valuable, but published decisions provide consumers with far more than statistics alone. They give a much richer understanding of the issues involved in a complaint, helping them make informed choices about legal service providers, promoting confidence in the complaints process, and supporting transparency and accountability.’
Cain added any move to publishing all ombudsman final decisions would be phased and is unlikely to happen before 2027/28.
He pointed out that with 30-40% of ombudsman decisions resulting in a finding of ‘no poor service’, publishing all decisions would offer a more balanced picture of the outcomes reached. Greater information about individual cases would also give lawyers the chance to better understand common issues, identify where they can improve and strengthen their complaint-handling procedures.
While the service provider would be named under ombudsman plans, published decisions would either fully redact complainants’ names and identity, or be written in a way that ensures complainants cannot be directly or indirectly identified.
Cain said nothing in the proposals affects the protections of legal professional privilege, as such information would not be disclosed.
The Legal Services Consumer Panel last year urged the ombudsman to publish all decisions in full, saying the reluctance to do so ‘reflects a regulatory culture that remains risk-averse and opaque at a time when other sectors have embraced openness as a fundamental part of their public service mandate’.
Access to justice charity Blind Justice UK has also criticised removing decision data after 12 months.
1 Reader's comment