Name this firm

If recently departed chair of the Legal Services Board's Consumer Panel Dianne Hayter is right that solicitors are 'in denial' about the way they are viewed by clients, they may soon be brought firmly to reality if plans to publish complaints against solicitors go ahead.

In its first annual report published on 27 June, the panel renewed its attack on the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) for failing to name and shame solicitors with poor complaints records. The report, which looked into the impact of the Legal Services Act on consumers, said there had been some positive changes but many existing problems persisted.

LeO's consultation on naming and shaming, launched in April this year, was described by Hayter as 'excessively cautious and consumer unfriendly'. The consultation closed on 30 June, the same day that LeO began publishing anonymised details of all cases adjudicated by an ombudsman on its website, containing basic information about the resolution processes followed and the types of remedies involved.

However, the panel said in its report that a 'key theme' was the imbalance of power between consumers and lawyers, contrasting this with other areas of the economy in which they are provided with more information than traditionally and with a greater ease in switching between providers via online comparison sites.

The panel warned that when it publishes its second impact report in June 2012 when the first ABS firms are in business, the 'market may look quite different and the impact of the reforms on the consumer experience might truly start to be felt'.

Since the consumer panel published its report, LeO published its own annual '“ first '“ report. It revealed that conveyancing and family '“ some of the practice areas deemed most at risk under the Legal Service Act '“ topped the complaints league table. Less than a month later, LeO brought the first enforcement proceedings against two firms that had refused to pay compensation to clients (see solicitorsjournal.com, 17 August 2011). Is this a sign that LeO will be getting tougher and should firms start ramping up their complaints procedures?

In the following opinion pieces, three experts at the forefront of marketing legal services to the consumer offer their opinions on what the impact of publishing upheld consumer complaints about solicitors will be for the solicitors, the public and the profession.

Knowing about suppliers' reputation

The purchaser of legal services is entitled to know that the person or organisation providing their service is reputable, experienced, qualified and properly regulated. There are various ways to gather this information but it is then up to the customer to make the appropriate choice of lawyer. In fact, I would say it is incumbent on the customer to carry out due diligence before appointing a new lawyer for any matter or transaction.

Consumers that don't get a good service should also have the right to complain to the ombudsman. However, there is serious damage that can be done to the reputation and business of an otherwise good lawyer if any complaint against them is published.

If the upholding of the complaint is so serious as to warrant a penalty or reprimand against the solicitor then publishing the Legal Ombudsman's findings could be seen to be in the public interest. However, if the complaint concerns an isolated incident in an otherwise unblemished record then the consumer protection benefit to be achieved must be weighed carefully against the potential damage to the solicitor's livelihood by being named and shamed.

Solicitors now have a very heavy regulatory burden upon them and rightly so. With changes in the regulatory environment due to be introduced over the next year, new entrants to the legal market, a challenging economy and difficult professional insurance regime, the Legal Ombudsman should be considering very carefully whether publication of an upheld complaint is in the public interest and whether to publicise would not be unfairly prejudicial to the solicitor in question.

Gary Yantin is managing director of High Street Lawyer (HighStreetLawyer.com), a network of approved local law firms providing fixed-price legal services to consumers and businesses across England and Wales

Let the market decide

The legal sector is about to about to go through enormous change with the arrival of new retail customer-focused brands that have great experience in dealing with customers and articulating propositions. I've worked in retailing all my life and my experience is that larger retailers are very good at listening to customers and good at sorting out problems even when they where not at fault because they understand that customers have got a choice of where to take their business.

When a customer complains, it should not be seen as a personal attack but an opportunity to learn from the situation and change procedures so that the same thing doesn't happen again. The legal industry needs to start talking about customer service as a selling point and in the new legal services regime those that fail to deliver excellent customer service will in time go out of business. My experience so far in the industry is that many solicitors feel they are delivering a good customer experience but have never really stood back and considered it from a customer's perspective.

Let the market decide. Legal businesses that fail to be alive to their customers' needs and requirements like any other retail business will not survive. Those that provide excellent customer experience will be successful and raise the bar as to quality and client care.

I don't think it necessary for the Legal Ombudsman to publish complaints against solicitors. What other industry does this? Many complaints could be ill-founded or merely as a result of a misunderstanding or failure to manage client expectations. The Legal Ombudsman, with the SRA, needs to manage and regulate the industry to ensure that the firms that cannot deliver appropriate legal advice and manage their financial affairs should not continue in business rather than become another 'Solicitors from Hell' website.

Ajaz Ahmed was co-founder of Freeserve and has teamed up with Yorkshire-based firm Last Cawthra Feather and document-assembly business Epoq to set up LEGAL365.com, a pre-ABS online legal service

Disproportionate punishment

We do not believe that publishing firms' complaints records will improve complaints handling or provide clients with useful information which will allow them to make an informed choice about which legal service provider to use. It is near impossible to contextualise any of the data that LeO is considering publishing, in a manner that will allow clients to truly compare providers. Instead, it is likely that clients will end up with misleading and simplistic league tables which may not even take account of the size of the firm or the areas of law they work within.

Publication, whatever the intentions behind it, will effectively constitute a punishment and the effect on firms' reputations is likely to be disproportionate to any lapse in client care on their part. Such 'punishments' are liable to tarnish the reputation that LeO has been building for fairness and, further, will move LeO away from its proper role of resolving legal complaints in a fair and independent way into the role of 'consumer champion'.

Publication may also have a commensurate impact on access to justice. Some areas of law, such as mental health, attract more complaints than others. Firms may be deterred from working in these areas, as publication of complaints will serve to damage their wider reputation.

We believe that publication of information such as anonymised case studies by LeO could be used to drive up standards of complaints handling across the sector and strikes the right balance in providing information which informs users about LeO's work while not overloading them with unhelpful information. The Society is ready to work with LeO on helping firms to deliver higher standards to the benefit of both users and providers.

Des Hudson is chief executive of the Law Society