Report comment

Why only 12 months? You do know, that despite the nonsense poured out by your previous Chief Exec, that solicitors aren't all demons who sit around the fire at solstice eating children, who all need to be punished by disproportionate fines for trivial matters for "distress and upset".

Yet LeO believed its own spin, and assumed that they would literally be flooded by genuine complaints. It hasn't hapenned, and they've had to let staff go as a result. One presumes that by increasing the complaint period to 12 months, they think they will articifically be able to increase the number of complaints they deal with.

This is a quasi public-sector body, so the usual economic rule applies:-

More work = More justification for the job = More useless positions and job titles (such as "Head of Regulatory Reviews and Investigations", "Head of Regulatory Performance and Operations", "Corporate Governance Manager","Head of Development and Research", "Matrix Working Project Manager", "Business Planning Associate", "Strategy Director", etc al

= more money, salary and remuneration for senior management.

All the above are genuine LeO job titles - http://www.legalservicesboard.org.uk/about_us/our_staff/20150206_LSB_Organisation_Chart.pdf

But why stop at 12 months. After all evil solicitors who issue court claims on behalf of poor, downtrodden consumers (consumers who can sometimes not achieve what they want) do need to be penalised. I would suggest 12 years. Or perhaps 120 years.

Surely it is right, isn't it, that the descendants of somebody who had "poor service" from an Attorney or a Proctor not being a barrister, in 1837, deserves compensation?

Justice for victims of Proctors. More Money for LeO!