header-logo header-logo

Complaints handling fails to impress

11 December 2024
Issue: 8098 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Legal services
printer mail-detail
The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has called for a ‘cultural shift’ in the way lawyers handle complaints.

LeO warned that complaints data for the 12 months up to the end of March 2024, published last week, shows no improvement in lawyers’ standards of customer service and complaints handling—with areas of failure not changing over time.

In total, LeO took on 6,652 complaints from people unhappy with the service they’d received from a legal provider, and resolved 7,918 complaints. One third of these related to residential conveyancing, with the next biggest areas being personal injury and wills and probate.

Overall, LeO found legal providers’ standard of service hadn’t been good enough in 69% of the cases it investigated. In residential conveyancing, personal injury, and wills and probate, there was evidence of poor service in three-quarters of cases.

Poor communication accounted for one in four of all complaints upheld, while one sixth were about legal providers’ delay and failure to progress legal matters.

Moreover, LeO found that lawyers’ in-house complaints handling hadn’t been good enough in nearly half (46%) of the complaints it investigated.

Chief ombudsman Paul McFadden said: ‘It’s good news that we’re able to sort out half of all complaints through early resolution. If something’s gone wrong, and a lawyer has offered to put things right fairly, we can explain that to their client.

‘But the fact is many of these complaints could have been prevented or resolved without us. And where we need to investigate in more depth, our data doesn’t paint a positive picture. It’s also disappointing we’re not seeing change or improvement in the types of issues consumers are raising.

‘Lawyers should welcome feedback from clients—including, and perhaps especially, about what’s not gone well. It’s clear a cultural shift is needed in lawyers’ approach to complaints – they’re opportunities to learn and do things better.’

Issue: 8098 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Legal services
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Sports disputes practice launchedwith partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

Tax and succession planning offering expands with returning partner

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
Early determination is no longer a novelty in arbitration. In NLJ this week, Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at Lexis+, charts the global embrace of summary disposal powers, now embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 and mirrored worldwide. Tribunals may swiftly dismiss claims with ‘no real prospect of succeeding’, but only if fairness is preserved
back-to-top-scroll