header-logo header-logo

Be prompt & watch your tone, says LSB

29 August 2023
Issue: 8038 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Legal services
printer mail-detail
Solicitors, barristers and other lawyers could be required to provide complaints information to clients at repeated intervals during the working relationship, under Legal Services Board (LSB) proposals.

Current professional rules state this information should be given at the time of instruction. The LSB proposes that lawyers be required to acknowledge receipt of complaints within five working days, provide updates on progress of the complaint and use ‘plain and appropriate language… to address the perceived power imbalance that may arise’. Communications should also be ‘empathetic’, since anecdotal evidence reported lawyers responding with ‘cold’ and ‘dismissive’ language. The LSB notes the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has observed language and tone as ‘a potential weak spot in first-tier complaints handling’.

The LSB, which regulates all eight branches of the legal profession, launched a consultation last week intent on tightening up ‘first-tier’ complaints procedures, where a client complains directly to the service provider rather than a regulatory body.

According to the LSB consultation paper, a ‘sizeable proportion’ of clients are ‘silent sufferers’, dissatisfied with the service they receive yet reluctant to complain because they believe it will be ‘an arduous process’ and their complaint won’t be taken seriously anyway. The LSB notes this problem is amplified where the client is in vulnerable circumstances, notably immigration and asylum clients.

LeO reported in its annual complaints summaries for 2019-20 and 2020-2021 that it found first-tier complaints handling ‘inadequate’ in about a quarter of cases investigated, with providers not responding or not responding within the eight-week time limit, or not addressing all the issues raised.

Richard Orpin, director of regulation and policy at the LSB, said: ‘Our proposals are designed to support a culture in which the sector responds positively and proactively to complaints, and embraces consumer feedback to learn lessons and raise standards.’

The consultation ends on 17 November 2023.

Issue: 8038 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Legal services
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