The number of complaints being made is going up; the cost of sorting them out is a source of resentment among the profession; despite a shake up in the organisation a few years ago, it is still open to accusations of lack of independence and of having too little lay representation.

Sound familiar? No, it is not the Solicitors Complaints Bureau, but the Institute of Chartered Accountants (ICA).The difficulties and solutions faced by professions which try to set up effective, affordable complaints systems are remarkably familiar, whether they be solicitors, doctors or accountants.Nevertheless, it is the SCB which has most recently been singled out for criticism.

Just before Christmas (see [1994] Gazette, 16 December, 5), the National Consumer Council produced a damning report on the work of the SCB.

The bureau was biased towards solicitors, too slow, too bureaucratic and often just plain wrong in its findings, said the NCC's researcher, Ole Hansen.

The report's conclusion was that, despite the Law Society's best efforts, the bureau as currently constituted is irredeemable and should be replaced by an entirely independent legal services complaints council.Complaints to most professional bodies are on the increase - a factor which, in itself, brings problems.

None, however, seems to have yet reached the scale of complaints about solicitors.

Complaints to the bureau during 1992 went up by some 15% to reach nearly 20,000.

During the same period, complaints about doctors to the General Medical Council reached 1615, a 24% increase on the previous year, which had itself shown an increase of 20% on the year before.

(The GMC's figures, however, do not take into account complaints about medical treatment made elsewhere.) The ICA handles around 4000 complaints a year.There are, however, some professions which remain relatively complaint-free, according to Law Society researchers.

The professional bodies for actuaries and licensed conveyancers claim just 20 complaints a year apiece.The number of complaints is determined to a large extent by the size of the profession and the amount of contact it has with the public.

With this caveat in mind, the number of complaints to the ICA - although only around a quarter of the number made to the SCB - is still a significant figure.

Yet the problem of complaints against accountants seems far less of an issue both inside and outside the profession.

When approached for details of its complaints system, the press office responded: 'I think we do have one.

I think there might be a leaflet or something.'It is not a conversation one would hold with anyone at the Law Society.

In their immediate and robust response to the NCC's criticisms, both Law Society Secretary-General John Hayes and bureau director Veronica Lowe insisted that the arrangements for solicitors compare favourably with those for other professions.

Mr Hayes said: 'It is important to remember that the solicitors' profession provides a greater level of client protection and complaints access than any other profession or trade.

Those dissatisfied by the fees charged or standard of service provided by an accountant, veterinary surgeon, doctor or architect do not have the avenues for redress afforded to those dissatisfied with a solicitor.'Ms Lowe responded in a similar vein, but added that the bureau is being used as a model of good practice for others to follow.

'The bureau has pioneered the offer of redress for inadequate professional service which is currently being adopted by the Bar Council and the General Medical Council,' she said.In its report, perhaps anticipating this line of defence, the NCC acknowledges that the proposed barristers complaints bureau would be simil ar to the SCB, but with two important differences.

Its director would not be a member of the profession.'Given the smaller size of the Bar and the fact that the more restricted role of barristers in relation to their clients gives rise to fewer complaints than those against solicitors, a barristers complaints bureau might be more successful than the Solicitors Complaints Bureau,' said the NCC.But Mr Hayes and Ms Lowe - who would not claim to be unbiased on this issue - are not alone in thinking solicitors are leading the way.Arnold Simanowitz, director of patients' charity Action for Victims of Medical Accidents, says: 'I have always held up the SCB to doctors as a better way of doing things.

It seems to me that cases are more independently judged.'The disciplinary arm of the doctors' profession, the GMC, may be entirely separate from its trade union functions, the British Medical Association, but such independence does not mean plaudits for its complaints handling.

Mr Simanowitz says the various complaints outlets available to patients are, in the main, dominated by doctors, fail to put patients' interests first and adopt too legalistic an approach.Complaining about a doctor is a notoriously complicated business.

The GMC's explanatory leaflet starts off less than encouragingly with the words: 'The General Medical Council is only one of several organisations that deal with complaints about health care and it is sometimes difficult to know to whom to complain...'The leaflet goes on to explain that other bodies include the police, the NHS, the local Family Health Services Authority or the hospital itself - one reason for the apparently low number of complaints made to the GMC compared with those made to the SCB.The GMC is restricted to investigating 'serious professional misconduct'; and another large chunk of the explanatory leaflet is taken up setting out who (nurses, midwives, receptionists) and what (errors in clinical judgment, fee levels, compensation) it does not cover.

No definition of 'serious professional misconduct' is given.The accountants' experience is perhaps more akin to that of solicitors - albeit with important differences.

A couple of years ago, no doubt with an eye on the potential PR ramifications, the ICA set up a joint disciplinary scheme (JDS) in conjunction with the certified accountants and the Scottish Institute.

Matthew Ives, director of professional conduct at the ICA, says: 'It was set up so that matters of public concern could be dealt with more at arms' length by a tribunal.' The JDS is run by a full-time lawyer and former members of the Serious Fraud Office and has, so far, had referred to it the cases of BCCI, Polly Peck and Maxwell, among others.The majority of complaints, however, are dealt with internally.

Mr Ives stresses that, just as the Law Society maintains with the SCB, the complaints system's link with the professional body does not compromise its independence.

'We are part of the institute's secretariat and are employed by the institute.

In practice it is a question of "What's in a name?" I do not think there is much difference between our approach and that of the Law Society.

There is never any interference by members of the council in what the disciplinary and investigation committees do.

The members are scrupulous about that.'Again, like the SCB, the complaints-handling arm is located at a separate building away from the main ICA staff.

It also places emphasis on conciliation although, says Mr Ives, with one important difference from the SCB's approach.

Mr Ives claims t hat a member of staff keeps in touch with the complainant who has been referred back to the firm for conciliation to check he or she is happy with the outcome.

The SCB, on the other hand, assumes that, unless the case comes back again, it has been effectively dealt with by the firm to the client's satisfaction.

This, however, might simply reflect the fact that he or she had given up in despair.The penalties the institute can impose are similar to those available to the Society, ranging from a rebuke to an unlimited fine, to striking off.

It cannot, however, force an erring accountant to pay compensation.

Its remit is far narrower than that of the SCB, being restricted to intervening where the accountant's behaviour is likely to 'bring discredit on the institute or the individual'.

Mr Ives insists, though, that this is interpreted widely, giving clients redress for those bugbears which seem to know no professional boundaries: delays, not replying to correspondence and not returning phone call.