Provide and serve?

Would either the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) or the Legal Services Ombudsman be willing to release the case papers relating to Ms N's complaint? (See [2000] Gazette, 19 October, 50).

It would appear from the bare facts reported that there is a difference in opinion about the requirements of Law Society practice rule 15 - and it might be useful for the profession to have the benefit of some independent scrutiny.

Of course, in any disclosure, the confidentiality of both complainant and her solicitors would need to be preserved.

On the face of the report in question, it seems that Ms N's solicitors have been criticised by tile Legal Services Ombudsman for failing to say 'sorry' for a misadventure that was beyond their control - and one for which they took account in advising the complainant during the course of the retainer.

There is a body of opinion which suggests that, in a competitive free-market, 'service complaints' should not be the subject of compulsory, professional regulation.

Such opinion represents a legitimate view: in a consumer society the customer is king.

Should the client receive shoddy service, market forces should ensure that the service provider will be driven out of business.

Here, the distinction between complaints about service and professional misconduct is crucial.

Some might argue that by allowing service complaints to become the object of professional regulation the Law Society has subscribed to the view that there is no difference between running a business which sells baked beans and another which provides professional services in a regulated environment.

So, for example, it is reasonable to expect that the baked beans sales person conforms with statutory health and safety requirements - but it is another thing altogether to insist that they massage the customer's ego in the process, and then impose a penalty if this is not done.

Surely, the manner in which solicitors deal with their customers is a matter for them, rather than for an independent regulator?

Back to Ms N.

I take some exception to the idea that any service provider should receive an official reprimand for a perceived failure to apologise to a customer when the provider is not at fault.

In such circumstances, whatever the commercial benefit of an apology, it should be a matter for the provider.

I sense that a growing number of practitioners share a concern about public statements made by the current LSO.

Lawyer-bashing will always attract popular appeal.

Is it not incumbent on an ombudsman to adopt a policy that is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances - not just those of the complainant?

Anthony Bogan, Law Society Council member for Surrey