The Law Society of England and Wales has welcomed the Legal Ombudsman’s (LeO) proposed model complaints resolution procedure (MCRP), but warned the organisation must be clear on how the strategy will be rolled out.
Last month, LeO launched a call for input on its draft MCRP, a new framework aimed at improving the consistency and quality of how complaints are handled by legal service providers. The Law Society said it followed existing good practice within many well-run firms, but questioned how the ombudsman intended to drive adoption where standards are weak.
Law Society president Mark Evans said: “We support LeO’s efforts to improve complaints handling and enhance consumer confidence. A more transparent framework has the potential to promote earlier and proportionate resolution of complaints. However, effective implementation will depend less on the articulation of the model itself and more on the guidance and templates around it.
“Safeguards are needed to ensure early resolution is correctly applied and does not prioritise speed or commerciality over fairness. This is particularly important in complex, sensitive or vulnerable client cases.”
In its response to the LeO’s call, the Law Society said a range of resources will be critical to the success of the rollout, including high-quality guidance and templates to encourage engagement, and consumer-facing resources clearly outlining how clients can seek redress for service complaints falling under the LeO’s jurisdiction, and conduct complaints directed to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
Early resolution efforts must be correctly applied to avoid any risk of “prioritising speed or commerciality over fairness”, and the model must also take into account the increasing use of artificial intelligence in complaints, increasing the number, complexity and the likelihood of escalation, the Law Society said.
Evans said: “It is imperative that complaints’ processes adapt to how complaints are raised today. More consumers are using AI, which is increasing the number, complexity and the likelihood of escalation.
“Regulators and redress schemes must carefully consider the practical implications of this to ensure complaints processes remain fair, workable and effective.
“We encourage LeO to engage with professional indemnity insurers, representative bodies and regulators to ensure that the MCRP is sufficiently refines to enable it to operate well within the wider regulatory framework and works for all legal service providers under LeO’s remit.
“The Law Society remains willing to support LeO in refining and promoting a model that’s proportionate, workable and capable of delivering genuine improvements in complaints handling across the sector.”
The response comes in the wake of the publication of LeO’s latest public interest decisions, one of which detailed how a firm was directed to pay £49,000 to a client after a lease extension was cancelled due to the failure to respond to HMLR requisitions.
One Response
The call for clarity on the ombudsman’s new complaints model exposes a deeper problem. The Law Society is doing what it can, but the real issue is the unchecked spread of crude consumerism into the rule of law, a legacy of the Legal Services Act 2007.
Legal services, like medical services, are not commodities. They are professional judgements delivered under legal and ethical duties. Yet the system now treats them as mere products, like cans of baked beans, to be sold off the shelf, and the consequences are plain to see. Good property lawyers are leaving in droves, and those who remain are suffocating under AML burdens, the tax-adviser fiasco, and now another layer of red tape.
Anyone who has worked with retailers knows the public can be irrational, aggressive and deeply unfair. Hard‑pressed conveyancers, already stretched to breaking point, will not welcome a model that further erodes professional status and autonomy. This all represents a structural misunderstanding of the role of lawyers. A profession essential to the functioning of the UK’s huge property market is being hollowed out by a consumerist mindset.
If policymakers want a resilient system, they must stop adding process and start restoring respect for professional judgment before there is no profession left to defend.