The Law Society hit back at the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner (LSCC) this week, saying that her demands would require an impossible 25% increase in caseworkers.

It follows Zahida Manzoor's decision last week to fine the Society £250,000 for the 'inadequacy' of its plan to improve complaints-handling over the next year. The money will go to the Treasury.



Ms Manzoor declared the plan inadequate last month on the basis that it neither included all the targets she set, nor aimed to deliver sufficient improvements (see [2006] Gazette, 6 April, 3).



She announced the fine having listened to representations from the Society, saying: '[The sum] reflects the fact that, among other things, [it] has failed to include all of my targets at the levels set. For example, I have yet to be convinced why the time that consumers have to wait to receive a letter, setting out the main points of their complaint, cannot be reduced from three months to at least two.'


However, in a joint statement, Law Society President Kevin Martin and Professor Shamit Saggar, chairman of the Law Society's Consumer Complaints Board, branded the targets 'unachievable and unrealistic'. It continued: 'The Consumer Complaints Service has analysed all of the LSCC's requirements in detail. It estimates it would have to increase the number of caseworkers from 340 to about 425 now - not during the course of the remainder of the year - to achieve them all.


'In reality, it takes nine months to recruit and get new caseworkers up to full capacity. To stand a chance of meeting the proposed targets, we would have to double our output during the last three months of 2006/07. Many of the new staff would have to be made redundant soon after, because there would be no work for them.'


The statement said there is also a small minority of complaints that, for various reasons, cannot be closed within 15 months; the LSCC wants all cases closed in that time.


It pointed to improved performance, with complaints being dealt with more quickly, the number of cases in progress falling, and the quality of decision-making rising.


Ms Manzoor insisted that the targets she set - and by which she is already judging the Law Society's performance - are 'reasonable, fair and achievable with a bit of stretch'.


She said she had already made concessions, but such is the improvement needed that '[the targets] still do not reflect the level of performance I'd expect from an effective and efficient organisation'.


Talks to agree the plan are ongoing, and Mr Martin said: 'We have moved a considerable distance.'