header-logo header-logo

15 November 2007
Issue: 7297 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Law Society escapes fine despite complaint failures

News

The Law Society has escaped being fined over its complaints handling record, despite failing to meet targets set by the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner.

The commissioner, Zahida Manzoor, says she is disappointed the Legal Complaints Service (LCS) and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) failed to meet five of the 13 targets she set, particularly as most of those missed related to the quality of complaints handling. However, she decided that a financial penalty was not appropriate.

She says: “The decision was finely balanced but my conclusion was that not levying a penalty was appropriate in the circumstances to reward the effort made and to incentivise sustained improvement.”

Consumers, she says, now receive a faster and a better service in some areas from the LCS and SRA as a result of three years of hard work by her office and closely monitored improvement plans. However, more still needs to be done and she warns the LCS and SRA against future complacency.
“Sustaining improvements in all areas is something I place great importance on, and something I expect an organisation now out of its second improvement plan year to deliver,” she says.

“The consumer and the legal profession should expect the LCS and SRA to not only meet all targets but to show an ambition to excel beyond them. I know targets are not an end in themselves, but as the evidence shows, they can act as a catalyst for improvement and change.

“I am concerned that early indications show that the LCS and SRA are falling behind the agreed 2007–08 targets. The Law Society now needs to deliver on all aspects of its performance.”

Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson says the LCS’s service compares favourably with other complaints handlers.
“We strongly supported measures in the Legal Services Act to establish a new body for dealing with all consumer complaints about lawyers that will be wholly separate from all the professional bodies,” he says.

Professor Shamit Saggar, chair of the LCS board, says: “We are very proud of the turnaround in our performance which has been driven by a board that has a clear consumer focus. We now have an excellent platform from which to deliver a modern 21st century consumer redress organisation which has the full confidence of both consumers and the profession.”
 

Issue: 7297 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Maryam Syed KC, Church Court Chambers

NLJ Career Profile: Maryam Syed KC, Church Court Chambers

From childhood dreams of the Bar to some of the country's most challenging cases, Maryam Syed KC explains why she has never stopped standing up for others

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft significantly expands Cyber team, hiring three Cyber partners

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson appoints senior healthcare leader Professor Clive Kay as strategic adviser

NEWS
As family justice moves further away from the courtroom, collaborative law is emerging as an increasingly important route to resolving separation disputes
A busy period for employment law is producing important lessons for employers, employees and tribunals alike
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll