LeO and lawyers need to be on the same page

The rule adopted by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) on the time limits for accepting complaints has been paraphrased as: ‘A complainant must refer a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman not later than: six years from when the act/omission; or three years from when the complainant should reasonably have known there was cause for complaint.’

Against the backdrop of this rule, LeO has been asked how many complaints it has accepted where the matter complained of was in fact more than six years from the complaint to the lawyer.

Given the above exposition of the apparent policy on time limits, it was not surprising that the response given was that no complaints had been accepted where the act or omission alleged had occurred more than six years before the complaint was made.

The reality is that during 2014 LeO accepted at least two complaints where the act or omission had to have occurred more than six years before the complaint was made. In the first case, made in February 2014, the legal services were completed by November 2005, and in the second case the legal services were completed by January 2007, in respect of a complaint made in July 2014.

The disregard by LeO of the time limits is bad enough, but what is of more concern is its delay and obfuscation in responding to requests for information; the latter occasionally being on an almost comical level, as in the recent case where they claimed it would cost them over £21m to comply with a straightforward request.

The approach of LeO to the disclosure of information is the sort of policy that might be expected from certain, not to be emulated, sections of the market, but from the body which regularly exhorts lawyers to raise the bar in terms of standards of performance, they should be leading the field
in conduct and standards of administration and governance.

We are entitled to expect the highest ethical, administrative and governance standards from the body that has been appointed to sit in judgement over the legal professions, and which we receive from the Law Society, Ilex and the Bar Council and take for granted.

If LeO operates as such, how
can it hope to command the respect of the profession, particularly when it demands information from respondents and sets strict time limits for providing such information? The answer is
it cannot. SJ

Chris Kilroy is a solicitor at Kilroys Solicitors