Consumers let down by legal quality schemes, panel says

Voluntary quality schemes for legal services failed to check providers' technical competence, didn't take account of consumer's views and offered "no proof that they are delivering on their quality claims", the legal services consumer panel has found.

In a damning report published this morning, the panel also warned of the risk that, because such schemes could in practice become mandatory, operators rather than regulators would be 'the guardians of entry standards'.

The panel said the emergence of quality schemes was in principle beneficial for consumer protection but fell down on a number of points.

Although the panel recognised the potential for quality schemes to be used as 'choice tools' by consumers, which would also encourage lawyers to compete on quality, it found that at present consumers tended to see these as 'industry marketing ploys rather than genuine guarantees of quality'.

In the majority of cases, it said, information available to consumers about the scheme and the ease with which it could be found was 'by and large quite poor'.

Its main recommendation in this respect was for operators and regulators to consider independent accreditation.

Panel chair Elisabeth Davies said schemes could be of real help but that 'in their current form, some schemes' claims that their members are better than the market average just can't be relied upon by consumers'.

'Even the best schemes will struggle to be accepted by consumers due to problems with quality marks in other parts of the economy that have dented trust.'

The panel concluded that schemes faced 'an uphill battle to tackle consumer scepticism and gain widespread awareness'.

'The legal services sector should consider the benefits and drawbacks of bringing in such third-party accreditation. However, this is only likely to work if it is initiated by the industry rather than being imposed from outside,' it said.

The report assessed 13 schemes, including the Law Society's two-year-old conveyancing quality scheme as well as more established schemes such as STEP and APIL accreditations, against ten criteria and found the validation processes generally satisfactory.

This included entry requirements, re-accreditation and disciplinary arrangements.

But the panel found the schemes wanting in relation to actual benefits to consumers.

In particular, the panel said the schemes ought to provide better information to consumers and evidence that scheme membership genuinely helps consumers identify legal experts.

Other criticism included the lack of lay input in the design of the schemes and weaknesses in ongoing monitoring processes to ensure lawyers kept competence levels at the required standards. Among the panel's recommendations was the use of spot-checks of client files.

The panel also said schemes should remain voluntary while calling on both operators and regulators to consider independent accreditation as a means of establishing trust in the schemes.