The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has published its final Model Complaints Resolution Procedure (MCRP), a new framework and supporting guidance designed to help legal service providers resolve complaints.
The guidance aims to help firms deal with complaints quickly and with more consistency, while also giving consumers a clearer route to resolution. The MCRP is voluntary and is not intended to replace or override regulatory requirements, but to provide a practical framework to be followed alongside existing rules.
The procedure has two stages: early resolution, which is focused on resolving concerns quickly and informally wherever possible, and full investigation, for cases requiring more detailed review.
The model has been developed in line with international best practice and with input from all legal regulators. It was tested through a three-month pilot involving 10 providers of a range of sizes and across the areas of law generating the highest volumes of complaints to LeO, including two sets of chambers.
More than half (57%) of the 631 complaints handled during the pilot were resolved at the early resolution stage, with an average resolution time of seven days. Claims requiring full investigation took an average of 21 days. Only 19 complaints from pilot firms were escalated to LeO during the pilot.
“Overall we saw lower rates of escalation to LeO than for previous non-pilot complaints”, the LeO said.
Following the pilot, the LeO ran gathered feedback from legal service providers, regulators, professional bodies and consumer organisations. Responses “strongly supported” the model’s structure and emphasis on early resolution, the ombudsman said.
Processes and guidance have been strengthened in accordance with the feedback and a “significantly expanded” set of resources has been developed, including guidance on supporting vulnerable consumers, handling complaints involving AI correspondence, and tailored guidance for barristers and chambers.
New toolkits have also been created to help organisations learn from complaints and improve services.
Chief ombudsman Phil Cain said: “The publication of the MCRP is a major milestone, and marks an important step forward in our ambition to improve complaint handling across legal services.
“The evidence from the pilot was compelling. More than half of complaints were resolved at an early stage, often within days, helping consumers receive quicker answers while reducing the need for complaints to progress further.
“By combining a clear process, practical guidance and a comprehensive set of resources, the MCRP gives providers the tried-and-tested tools they need to resolve complaints quickly, save time, and deliver a more consistent and consumer focused complaints experience.
“We are grateful to everyone who helped shape the model and look forward to seeing the positive impact it can have across the sector.”
Consumer-facing guidance and template letters have been developed and tested with a consumer organisation to help members of the public raise clear and effective complaints.
One Response
This announcement that LeO has “successfully piloted” its new complaints resolution procedure invites a simple question. Successful for whom?
Certainly not for the conveyancers who have spent years navigating an ombudsman service whose members often lack grounding in the law they are adjudicating. Those who have dealt with LeO in practice understand the reality behind the headline. The accompanying suite of guidance notes and templates is impressive in volume, but it brings to mind the line attributed to Thomas More about failing to see the forest for the trees. Hard‑pressed conveyancers do not need more paperwork; they need a regulatory framework that understands the work they actually do. And that is the deeper problem. The very concept of “legal consumerism”, imported wholesale into the hideously over‑engineered Legal Services Act 2007, was always alien to the historic constitutional role of the legal profession.
Since 2007, the legal services market has been structurally fragmented to the point of incoherence. Multiple regulators, overlapping jurisdictions, and a consumerist ideology have suffocated the voice of the profession beneath layers of red tape and poor legislation.
Today’s announcement is another reminder that the regulatory system is still unable to see the forest, the profession itself, for the trees.