header-logo header-logo

Criticisms falling on deaf ears?

16 June 2011
Issue: 7470 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Legal Services Board claims lawyers fail clients on complaints-handling

Clients who are dissatisfied with their lawyer routinely find it difficult to bring a complaint, are not told that they can complain, or are charged by their lawyer for the privilege, according to research by the Legal Services Board (LSB).

More than half of 1,275 dissatisfied clients taking part had not been told about their service provider’s complaints procedure. Of those who were told, less than half found the procedure easy to understand.

The research, conducted by YouGov in February and March 2011, showed a strong link between knowledge of procedure and likelihood of making a complaint.

Only a third of dissatisfied clients made a complaint, of whom more than three quarters had been told about the complaints procedure. Of the two-thirds who didn’t make a complaint, only 18% had been told about the complaints procedure.

Where clients did raise a complaint, the vast majority (70%) progressed no further than the initial in-house stage of complaints-handling.

All approved regulators are required to ensure legal services providers clearly inform clients of their right to complain and the process for doing so, including giving them information about the legal ombudsman.

Chris Kenny, chief executive of the LSB, said: “Too many consumers give up when they are unhappy with the outcomes of the in-house process—despite having the right to escalate the complaint to the legal ombudsman.

“Improving this situation is an urgent priority for consumer protection, for improving the service itself and for enhancing public confidence in lawyers.

“A particular concern is the number of clients who reported that they have been charged for their complaints. The LSB regards this as totally unacceptable, and expects approved regulators to take firm action in all cases where it is proven.”

Jon Robins, director of Jures, an independent research company and thinktank dedicated to the legal services market, says the research shows that complaints handling remains a major problem for lawyers: “It is a problem that is only going to become more exposed with the scrutiny brought by new competition from the high street brands moving into the services as a result of the Legal Services Act. They know not only how to keep customers happy but also to bring unhappy ones back onside.”

Issue: 7470 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll