Legal Ombudsman

The Legal Ombudsman should press to extend its jurisdiction to complaints about non-lawyer will-writers and the not-for-profit sector, while the government needs to review its inadequate powers over complaints against CMCs, a study has recommended.

From April 2012 the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) will “name and shame” law firms or lawyers against whom a “pattern of complaints” has been made, or whenever naming is judged to be in the public interest, it announced today.

The Legal Ombudsman service is planning for more complaints because of concerns that the legal aid cuts will drive down standards among solicitors, its chief executive has revealed. He said: “It might be prudent to plan for more complaints about lawyers and legal services rather than less.”

The Legal Ombudsman is to float the idea of extending its jurisdiction so as to handle complaints against will-writers, in a bid to ease the problems faced by consumers who think they are regulated, Legal Futures can report.

The Legal Ombudsman has brought its first enforcement actions in the county court after two law firms failed to comply with its orders. In the first case, LeO had told the solicitors to pay £2,650 compensation to their client for paying money to a third party without authorisation.

The Legal Ombudsman is stepping up pressure on the Legal Services Board to sort out the current regulatory regime by commissioning research that will look at consumer confusion caused by reserved and unreserved legal activities and how it could be exacerbated by alternative business structures.

The confused system of regulation for legal services risks leaving consumers without protection when things go wrong, especially with unregulated businesses “masquerading as traditional law firms, branded with more legal wigs and gowns than you can shake a quill pen at”, the Legal Ombudsman has warned.

The overlap between regulated and unregulated legal services is causing consumer confusion, with online services emerging as a particular problem, the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has warned. LeO said it needs more clarity about the limits of its jurisdiction as the market is already changing and innovating.

Complaints against barristers by litigants-in-person forced by legal aid cuts to represent themselves are rising fast, according to the Bar Standards Board. Many result from a misunderstanding of the role of opposition barristers. The Justice Bill, containing more cuts, should be published today.

Poor communication between lawyers and their clients was “writ large” as a theme running throughout cases brought to the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) in its first six months, the chief ombudsman has reported. It launched nearly 4,000 investigations by the end of March, from more than 38,000 calls.

More than half of all legal providers are failing to meet requirements to provide clients with clear information on their complaints procedure – according to research from the Legal Services Board – which also shows that almost 70% of complaints against lawyers are upheld.

This week’s news in brief includes details of London law firm EDC Lord & Co, barristers’ chambers 6 Pump Court and referral agency Contact Law launching an online fixed-fee legal advice scheme, ClickLaw24.com.

Our regular round-up of snippets of news that you need to know takes in the Legal Ombudsman, conveyancing, financial difficulties for law firms, a shortfall of LPC graduates, the first divorce app, new members for LawNet, an LPO survey, the new Law Society deputy vice-president, and Expert Answers’ affiliate programme.

The government has strongly supported the publication of complaints and other data as a way for consumers to hold businesses to account, in a move likely to put further pressure on the Legal Ombudsman to name law firms that are subject to complaints.

The battle over whether the Legal Services Board, its consumer panel and the Legal Ombudsman can retain their own websites continues, with the sites not closing at the end of last month as the Ministry of Justice had originally instructed.