Lawyers' got talent?

QualitySolicitors' chief executive Craig Holt said recently that the number of law firms falling under the QS umbrella was now 170, with 30 to 40 more due to start during the next two months. Impressive enough, but he went on to say that, by the end of the year, this number will have soared past the 400 mark.

When coupled with the QS presence in approximately 500 WHSmith outlets within the same timeframe, this gives the group an astonishing 1,000 locations. The speed of such growth is impressive by anyone's standards, but it does give rise to a concern. How, exactly, can QS ensure that all member firms justify the quality appellation and how should it respond to the suggestion that the claim to quality standards has been 'appropriated'?

Speaking at a conference last month, QualitySolicitors' director Saleem Arif was questioned, in light of the claim implicit in the company's title, as to how QS went about the business of ensuring that each firm that signed up was of sufficiently high quality to qualify to use the brand name. In reply, Arif said that QS used a qualified Lexcel adviser, whose function was to visit each prospective firm to 'make sure that they are good enough'. He didn't say who did this work for QS or how long it took, but the implication was clear enough '“ QualitySolicitors would only admit firms of an approved standard. When pushed further about the level of standards, Arif stated that one QS firm was being ejected because its standards were not sufficiently high, although he was understandably reluctant to name the firm in question.

During a subsequent video interview, Craig Holt put things a little differently, saying that the QS name was about a new brand in a market where there are currently no brands. The name was about quality of service and customers' opinions (customers being the word also used in QS' client-facing material). To this end, he said, QS obtains feedback information from clients about their member firms. Those that receive low scores are 'put through' support training '“ and those that are very poor are ejected, such being the fate of the unnamed ejectee. Holt made no mention of any other means of assessment of firms for quality.

Over ambitious?

It would clearly be unrealistic to expect QS to install vetting and monitoring arrangements on a par with those which one might expect to see from a regulator. Nevertheless, Arif's comments did suggest that it expects its member firms to be of a similar standard to Lexcel accredited firms (though, bearing in mind that Lexcel's penetration of the profession is less than ten per cent, it is unlikely that many will actually be Lexcel accredited).

So, what might one expect an alternative accreditation process to involve? Based on the Lexcel precedent, each prospective QS member firm would be subjected to an initial assessment visit to review practice standards, followed by a report suggesting changes or improvements, then implementation of these by each firm. This would need to be followed up by some form of ongoing programme of continuous assessment to make certain that standards were being maintained and that uniformity existed in the QS population. Such a process is, in my experience, not particularly quick or easy '“ it is also fairly labour intensive and time-consuming.

If Holt's recent predictions regarding the growth targets for the expansion of QualitySolicitors are met, a process on these lines would need to be completed for around 300 new QS firms between now and the end of 2011. This is far beyond the workload of any single Lexcel-qualified consultant, or indeed the capacity of several such individuals.

The unavoidable conclusion is that, unless QualitySolicitors is undertaking due diligence on member firms of a type which it has not as yet disclosed, it is taking on any new firm which has a reasonable reputation locally, is not averse to being promoted in WHSmith, and can meet the financial entry criteria. On this basis some observers might take the view that the claim to quality is what was referred to in Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company '“ 'a mere puff'.

Copyright & permissions