header-logo header-logo

20 February 2010
Categories: Legal News , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

Be prepared for changes on client complaints

Solicitors will have to take extra steps to inform clients of their right to complain, as of 1 March.

Solicitors will have to inform clients in writing from the outset about their right to complain about their bill, following a change to Rule 2 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct.

They will need to inform clients they have a right to make a complaint to the Legal Complaints Service and to apply to the court for an assessment of their bill under Part III of the Solicitors’ Act 1974, and that they may be charged interest if their bill remains unpaid.

New guidance to Rule 2 will be added as note 49B. The Law Society is updating its practice notes on client care letters and complaints management.

A Solicitors Regulation Authority spokesperson said: “Solicitors will need to up-date their client care letters to give the information required by the new rule. 

“They also need to take out any reference to remuneration certificates on their bills, or letters that go out with their

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll