Mid-Staffs scandal highlights dangers of defensive culture in the law, says consumer chief


Ethics: mandatory training?

A culture of defensiveness among lawyers risks the sort of regulatory failure that occurred in the Mid-Staffordshire Hospital Trust patient neglect scandal – and legal regulators must take heed, the head of the Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP) has warned.

More must be done to consider the importance of shaping lawyers’ culture when delivering regulatory outcomes, said the panel’s chair, Elisabeth Davies.

Writing on the panel’s website, Ms Davies said: “Regulation has to be about culture, it’s what society expects and it’s how the effectiveness of the legal reforms will ultimately be judged.”

She said the report into Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust by Robert Francis QC, which was published last week, was predictable in the way it kept returning to the question of how, “in such a regulated sector – and such a regulated workforce – could this ever have happened?”

She added: “There will be all sorts of platitudes in the coming months about lessons that must be learned but at the heart of this must be a question about regulation and culture. It’s a question that needs asking in legal services: How can the regulators shape the culture of providers?”

She highlighted the Legal Services Board’s consultation on its draft business plan as part of “a strong sense of moving to a new phase” in the legal services reforms that followed the Legal Services Act 2007. “But whilst the structures and processes have started to change, what about the culture of legal services? The evidence suggests there is still far to go,” she observed.

She contrasted the Francis report’s recommendation for a statutory obligation on doctors and nurses for a “duty of candour” about mistakes made in patient care with the “defensive attitude towards complaints among lawyers” revealed in LSCP research conducted with the Legal Ombudsman.

Also, said Ms Davies, on the same day Mr Francis criticised the Royal College of Nursing for failing to support its members who raised concerns, the Law Society “poured cold water on the SRA’s plans to enhance whistleblowing by solicitors”.

She concluded: “Regulators have an obligation to consider how they should judge the ethics and culture of the firms they regulate. The shift to outcomes-based regulation, away from a rules-based model, acknowledges this but more must be done to recognise the importance of culture in the delivery of good regulatory outcomes.

“The Legal Education and Training Review should recommend mandatory ethics training for lawyers and Richard Moorhead’s ideas around consequential responsibility deserve serious consideration.”

Tags:




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


Five key issues to consider when adopting an AI-based legal tech

As generative AI starts to play a bigger role in our working lives, there are some key issues that your law firm needs to consider when adopting an AI-based legal tech.


Bulk litigation – not always working in consumers interests

For consumers to get the benefit, bulk litigation needs to be done well, and we are increasingly concerned that there are significant problems in some areas of this market.


ABSs, cost and audits – fixing regulation after Axiom Ince

A feature of law firm collapses and frauds has sometimes been the over-concentration of power in outdated and overburdened systems of control.


Loading animation