header-logo header-logo

20 July 2011
Issue: 7475 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Warning from watchdog

Legal ombudsman advises against unregulated services

Clients are left powerless when unregulated will-writing and claims management companies make mistakes, and the situation is likely to get worse, the legal ombudsman has warned.

In his first annual report to Parliament since the organisation launched in October 2010, chief legal ombudsman Adam Sampson highlighted current gaps in regulation.

One service that “crops up a lot” is unregulated will-writing firms, he said. “Because of this customers are left with little means of redress when things go wrong.

“We’ve seen similar confusion about claims management companies, with lots of customers believing they’re getting a legal service even though most of the work is carried out by a non-authorised person. Again, we can’t help.”

The difficulties with the current regulatory regime are likely to increase, given the increasing “commoditisation” of legal services and the continuing influence of technology, the report states. The impending introduction of alternative business structures under the Legal Services Act will also “present new challenges at the edges of regulation”.

Sampson said the market shake-up would see legal services provided by large corporations and bundled up with financial services and other products.

“In some cases, the issue might go instead to another ombudsman. In some, Trading Standards” he said.

“Sometimes, there may be no-one in a position to help. There is a huge risk of overlap and confusion here which it is important that the regulators and policy-makers begin to focus on.

“Some firms offer ‘expert’ online legal advice which is often bundled with financial or insurance services, and many of these are backed by large corporations. Naturally, consumers expect the same standard of care as from their local lawyer, but in some cases it’s woefully lacking.”

Conveyancing accounted for one in five of the 4,000 complaints accepted for investigation by the ombudsman, as did family law work. More than 13% of the complaints arose from will-writing and probate. Litigation gave rise to roughly ten per cent of complaints, and so did personal injury work.

The Legal Services Board consumer panel called for will-writing to become a reserved activity, in a report published last week. It conducted a mystery-shopping exercise in which more than a fifth of 64 wills were found to be of inadequate quality.

Issue: 7475 / Categories: Legal News
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