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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll