Despite the obligation on solicitors to direct all clients to the Legal Ombudsman should they wish to complain, this new organisation appears already to have closed its complaints service to many businesses.
The change
On 6 October 2010, the new Legal Ombudsman (LeO) opened its
doors in Birmingham, thereby ending the reign of the much-maligned
Legal Complaints Service (LCS) and continuing the move away from
self-regulation of the legal profession, towards greater
independence. On its first day it received a staggering 497
complaints, so it would appear as if its profile is already higher
than its predecessor and this is perhaps a sign of things to
come.
As part of the regulatory overhaul, the LeO has abandoned the
legally-principled standard of inadequate professional
service in considering complaints. Instead, it will now
take what it describes as a 'common-sense approach',
considering complaints "by reference to what is, in the
opinion of the ombudsman making the determination, fair and
reasonable in all the circumstances of the case".
It is also a free service and has the ability to award up to
£30,000 in compensation. So far, so good.
However, where things arguably start to go wrong is that the LeO
is designed solely and exclusively for consumers, by which it means
individuals, "very small businesses", charities and
trusts (as is made clear in the standard complaint form to be found
on the LeO's website). So where does that leave larger
businesses with grievances? And where does the definition of
"very small business" (and, with it, the remit of the
LeO) stop? Of course, many larger businesses would not want
to use the LeO to resolve their disputes with a solicitor, but does
that mean that they should be denied that
option?
These questions are already causing some difficulty among firms of
solicitors with mixed client bases, compounded by the Law
Society's practice note on client care, which (at paragraph
3.5) requires solicitors to inform "all clients"
of their right to take a complaint to the LeO. Should firms
refer corporate clients to the LeO knowing that the Ombudsman
asserts no jurisdiction, or should they ignore the practice
note? On balance, most firms are erring on the side of
annoyance and referring all clients to the LeO for fear that
telling aggrieved clients that they have no right to go to the
Ombudsman may do more harm than good. Nevertheless, some
clarity on this issue would be welcomed, particularly in the brave
new world of 'outcomes-focused regulation'.
It is obviously very early days for the new Ombudsman and this may
be a teething issue. Either it, or the over-arching Office
for Legal Complaints (OLC), may resolve it in time. However,
it betrays the difficulties in having several different bodies
regulating one profession and it is unlikely to be a solitary
example of conflicts arising. It will be interesting to see
how these conflicts are managed.
Further reading: Solicitors PI: Counting the cost of
improved legal regulation
This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq
Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.
The original publication date for this article was 27/10/2010.