header-logo header-logo

All complaints to be recorded under SRA & BSB proposals

04 June 2025
Issue: 8119 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Regulatory
printer mail-detail
The regulators of both barristers and solicitors have launched consultations on the way lawyers handle complaints

Barristers would have a professional duty to inform their chambers or the Bar Standards Board (BSB) of any complaints they receive, under proposed changes to the Bar Handbook.

In a consultation published last week, the BSB said it would analyse the data on complaints ‘on a regular basis’ to identify any trends or risks that might emerge. Failure to report complaints could be sanctioned by ‘regulatory action, including supervision and enforcement action’.

The BSB would provide guidance or even supervision to ‘barristers with disproportionately high levels of first-tier complaints, premature complaints to the Legal Ombudsman, or more generally identified weaknesses in complaints handling’.

The consultation, ‘New arrangements and rules for first-tier complaints handling’, closes on 6 August.

Mark Neale, director general of the BSB, said: ‘Consumers must have confidence that their complaints will be fairly assessed and dealt with efficiently, effectively and fairly at the first available opportunity.’

Under changes proposed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) last week, solicitors would be obliged to give clients information on how to complain once their legal matter is concluded as well as on request or on receipt of a complaint.

Currently, solicitors must publish details of their complaints handling procedure on their website or make this information available on request if they don’t have a website. According to the SRA, only about 68% of firms with websites do this.

The SRA proposes changing the requirement to ensure complaints information is treated in the same way as costs—displayed in a place that is easy for the public to locate, clearly signposted and easy to understand.

Paul Philip, SRA chief executive, said: ‘Solicitors shouldn't be afraid of encouraging complaints.’

The SRA consultation, ‘Changing our requirements on first-tier complaints’, began last week and closes on 25 July.

Issue: 8119 / Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Regulatory
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll