LeO's new naming and shaming policy needs clarification

The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) is set to publish the names of lawyers 'where there is a pattern of complaints or when it is in the public interest to do so'. The decision was hardly unexpected, though it may well feel to lawyers like a bit of a low blow. It is undoubtedly another indicator that law is undergoing revolution, driven largely from outside the profession. Yet another reason to take a step back to review the firm's systems and processes, ensuring that we are business-like and resilient in a much-changed marketplace.

What constitutes a 'general pattern of complaints' will probably cause much puzzlement. LeO says it will analyse the data to spot similar types of complaint arising across the profession. Where it finds a trend, it will report it, giving names where appropriate. For example, LeO might find that firms are failing to inform clients of any financial or other interest that an introducer has in referring the client to the firm under a referral agreement (see chapter 9 of the new SRA handbook, on fee sharing and referrals). In drawing attention to this issue, I suspect that the names of firms and possibly individual lawyers within those practices may be published.

We can only speculate as to what sort of complaint might be 'in the public interest' to discuss in detail. It is arguable that any complaint might be, but who within LeO has the authority to decide and how do they make their judgement?

The more important question is, surely, what we should do differently to try to reduce any likelihood of unresolved complaints and what should we do to mitigate the impact if a complaint is sent to LeO. The fewer complaints reaching LeO the better, for us and for our clients.

Improve your systems

In my firm we have recently reviewed our complaints procedures and our training to ensure that staff are clear on their obligations when even a grumble surfaces from a client. The better your system for dealing with complaints, the more likely you will: (a) resolve it successfully both for you and for the client; (b) you may even retain your client for future business; and (c) you will avoid the potential for a complaint being presented to LeO for its adjudication '“ with the now added threat of publicity.

A good complaints procedure will ensure that the firm trains staff to know what they must do when they become aware of a complaint, and responds promptly to the client. It is also wise to delegate authority to the complaints officer to offer reasonable solutions at an early stage (including financial compensation if required), keep good records of individual complaints including a concise but complete complaints file, and adhere to its published complaints procedure.

Let's also briefly consider what we can do if a complaint actually lands on the ombudsman's desk. Given the potential for bad publicity and the additional cost of a £400 penalty if LeO finds against your firm (that is, after the two-per-year 'free' complaints that LeO allows for each firm, regardless of size), it makes sense to act positively by offering a fair settlement at an early stage '“ even before it reaches LeO. However, if you have been fair to your client and tried to deal with their complaint positively, making reasonable offers and keeping those offers open, then it is not inevitable that you will lose.

Assuming that you have dealt with the complaint proactively from the outset, the best approach with LeO is to follow the steps in the box below.

Our experience of dealing with LeO is that they are generally reasonable and fair. So, a firm's approach to complaints, preparation and knowledge of the circumstances is key to a good outcome.

It would be difficult to argue that these changes are welcome to a profession facing massive regulatory and competitive change right now. Nevertheless, a robust, flexible complaints procedure that is properly implemented and well-managed in your firm can achieve a high level of protection for the reputation of your firm and of individual fee earners.

Now more than ever, complaints must receive priority in our firms or our reputation will, in the end, suffer for it.