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.