Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.


All of these ludicrous reports that emanate from public bodies seem to be written in the same dreadful language. It's presumably because the authors are aware of just how banal the actual content is, and have therefore employed an impenetrable, quasi-academic style of writing in a doomed attempt to give that content some authority.

The language sounds as though it's been processed through a jargon generator, and can easily be recognised by the use of key words such as "empower", "engage", "customer journey", "best practice", "stakeholder" and so on.

An example taken at random from this report illustrates the point:

"Development of a consumer education hub. The Legal Choices platform should be overhauled to ensure that it can play a major role in empowering legal services consumers, particularly when they first engage with the sector. The redevelopment should include input from consumer and business groups, with a clear focus on the needs of consumers, to help consumers navigate and interact with the sector. The content should reflect the purchasing journey for common legal needs, in addition to general public legal information. This improved content should also be actively promoted through effective marketing directly by regulators and consumer groups."

This is virtually unreadable. The irony is that the authors of this rubbish are the greatest advocates of (another favourite jargon word) "transparency".

So far as the content of the report itself is concerned it's fundamentally flawed as it appears to have no understanding at all of the nature of a professional relationship.

In all of its 518 pages the report - perhaps to avoid embarrassment - doesn't actually name its authors so I have no idea whether any of them are or have ever been practising solicitors. It seems unlikely, because the underlying premise is that people who are seeking legal advice are essentially making the same type of decision as people who are looking for a new telly - in other words their main concern by far is price.

This is simply not the case at all. Although the cost of obtaining the advice is obviously a concern it's the quality of the service that is far more important for most clients. And the only way that this can be properly assessed is by word of mouth recommendation.

This is, of course, anathema to the simpletons who write these reports. They like to show how jolly up to date they are by extolling the virtues of comparison websites, presumably unaware in their naiveté that most such sites are a con, using headline prices to lure the hapless consumer in and then secretly loading those prices back up again once the target has been snared.

A report like this is, apart from providing employment for the otherwise unemployable, an utter waste of time, effort and money. It's a classic example of people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Your details