The alleged futility of the SRA’s ‘consultation’ made the letters page . This futility extends to the Legal Ombudsman too.

On that date I attended a meeting with a diverse group of people with an interest in whether or not solicitors should be named when a matter is referred to the ombudsman – and, if so, to what extent.

I was disheartened to hear the legal industry viewed as a consumer market; clients referred to as ‘consumers’; and our legal craft treated as a service akin to selling off-the-rack clothes and supermarket vegetables. Lawyers were regarded as outlaws in the wild west – call Wyatt Earp.

Complaints against lawyers cannot be considered akin to those in the banking and utilities sector, where the service delivered is quantifiable as a consumer service. What is ‘value for money’ in a child care proceedings case? SRA representatives in attendance did on one occasion make a meek submission that they could expand, should they so wish, to carry out the role of the ombudsman, while stopping short of saying they wanted to. Allowing lay persons to attend could only mean an axe to grind, and guess what – they support full naming and shaming of solicitors.

One thoroughly good chap pointed out how over-regulated lawyers are: internal grievance procedures; the Law Society; SRA; conduct rules; and now an ombudsman to contend with, when what we really need is indemnity insurance cover. Consumers need ombudsmen; people need solicitors.

Ravinder Singh-Chumber ,partner, Crown Gate Law Solicitors, Birmingham