LeO aims to extend role to accountants and architects

LeO has set out ambitious plans to extend its role beyond complaints about lawyers to accountants, architects, and other property and tax professionals.

The legal ombudsman has already proposed that it should cover complaints about unregulated legal services through a voluntary jurisdiction, and held discussions about complaints handling with RocketLawyer.

In a discussion paper published this morning, Elizabeth France, chair of LeO's board, said the ombudsman stood ready to consider widening its role in relation to ADR for "all legal and other professional services, as part of a coherent overall framework for redress".

LeO said its plans had been triggered by the European ADR directive, which requires the UK to have ADR schemes in place by early 2015 for consumers of most goods and services.

The paper said it was "not a question of whether ADR should be provided but how it should be provided" and the directive encouraged member states to look to existing ADR bodies to increase their remits.

So it was "for consideration" whether LeO's board should propose to BIS "that a restructured legal ombudsman should be extended to cover other professional services, on either a voluntary or compulsory basis."

The advantages would be clarity for consumers, consistency across professional sectors, the benefits of using an existing organization and economies of scale.

LeO suggested its future ADR scheme could cover accountants, architects, planning advisers and other property and tax professionals, but the list was not exhaustive.

"What all the professionals outlined above have in common is that there is no access to independent redress for services provided by these professionals," LeO said.

"Additionally, many engage in the provision of some aspects of legal services. Finally, these might be covered UK-wide, rather than limited to England and Wales, where there is no existing ADR provider."

LeO added that ombudsmen provided an effective form of ADR, and was preferable to other models which "may not have access to the same tools to ensure a level playing field between the parties".

In her introduction to the paper, France said: "We are guided by two principles - the need for simplicity and for effectiveness in how redress is provided.

"Many consumers will not think about who provided a service or where the boundaries in definition lie. We know that legal services are increasingly becoming entwined with other professional services.

"This lack of clarity around regulatory boundaries can be problematic for consumers as well as for businesses which must grapple with more than one set of sometimes conflicting requirements if they operate in more than one sector."