header-logo header-logo

24 March 2012 / Dr Jon Robins
Issue: 7506 / Categories: Opinion , Legal services
printer mail-detail

Service please

la7575-001-1_4

Should customers be king in the post-LSA legal landscape, asks Jon Robins

Straight-talking legal ombudsman Adam Sampson reopened a can of worms earlier this month by challenging lawyers who insist their “clients” aren’t “customers”. The head of the Office for Legal Complaints is a repeat offender on this point. When he took on the post back in 2009, he talked of a new service “to resolve disputes between lawyers and their customers”.

He was “plainly wrong”, complained Marcel Berlins at the time. The term “customer” applied to someone who bought goods or non-professional services (from say, a plumber) but didn’t apply to seekers of professional services. “I fear it’s an attempt to use a more common term in order to play down the perceived elitism of the legal profession,” Berlins reflected.

Sampson insists his choice of words is “a deliberate symbol of the change which our arrival signaled”. He argues that the word “client” harked back to the traditional relationship between lawyers and those they represent (“one of unequal power and status”); whereas

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll