The legal ombudsman’s plans for a huge increase in case fees where complaints are not resolved early are ‘excessive, disproportionate and unfair’, the Law Society said today.
Higher charges could instead be imposed on repeat offenders, Chancery Lane suggested, allowing firms to continue to be protected from fees where complaints are dismissed.
The Office for Legal Complaints, which oversees the ombudsman service, is consulting on radical changes which include increasing the charge for a final decision to £1,500. Cases which go to investigation would cost the legal service provider £750, but the fee for a case resolved early would be just £200. Currently, the individual case fee is £400.
An additional £400 would be levied on any legal services provider that did not issue a final response to a client’s complaint within eight weeks, irrespective of outcome.
Last year LeO proposed a single case fee of £600, a proposal which the Society accepted. However, the ombudsman has since reconsidered following a 37% rise in the volume of complaints in 2025-26 alone. Higher fees would bolster the ombudsman’s income in the face of soaring demand.
‘We are concerned that the proposed case fees are excessive, disproportionate and unfair,’ the Society said in its response to the consultation. ‘The current proposal marks a significant increase from that [£600] benchmark and no clear evidence has been presented to demonstrate why such a substantial rise is necessary. Without a clear cost-recovery rationale, the proposal risks creating the impression that case fees are being used as a punitive tool rather than as a proportionate contribution towards the operation of the scheme.’
Small firms, sole practitioners and firms operating in areas of law where margins are tight would be left exposed by the rises, it added. A fuller impact assessment encompassing sectors such high-volume consumer practices, legal aid providers and rural firms should be carried out before any rises are introduced, Chancery Lane recommends.
Even if complaints are resolved in the lawyer’s favour, firms would no longer automatically be exempt from case fees. The ombudsman would need to be satisfied that firms took all reasonable steps to resolve the complaint at first-tier.
The Society once again demurs, pointing out that many complaints are dismissed because they should not have entered the LeO process in the first place. This includes complaints that are frivolous or vexatious, submitted too late, better dealt with by another body, or otherwise unsuitable for investigation. ‘Charging firms for these cases may reduce the incentive to identify and filter out unsuitable complaints at an early stage,’ it added.
LeO also wants to introduce a long-stop date for complaints of 12 years. But the Society believes this risks displacing rather than reducing disputes, disproportionately affect conveyancing, probate and trust complaints.
‘Consumers whose complaints involve latent defects discovered after the 12-year period may be forced to pursue professional negligence litigation instead,’ it added. ’This could increase costs for consumers, legal providers and professional indemnity insurers, while reducing access to a free and informal route to redress. Consideration should therefore be given to retaining Ombudsman discretion in exceptional cases.’
The consultation closes today.
No comments yet