The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has published its latest raft of public interest decisions, revealing “serious failings in the delivery of legal services”.
The six new decisions reveal failures to provide clear advice, carry out essential checks and manage cases effectively have led to tangible and, in some instances, irreversible consequences for the individuals involved.
All six cases resulted in compensation for financial loss, reimbursement of costs, and payments for distress and inconvenience.
Chief ombudsman Phil Cain said: “These decisions point to serious failings in the delivery of legal services by the firms involved, where fundamental aspects of good practice have not been met.
“Consumers place trust in their legal provider to guide them through complex processes, to protect their interests and to ensure that critical steps are handled properly. When that does not happen, the consequences can be profound.
“Legal service providers should take the learning from these decisions seriously. Reflecting on where things have gone wrong – and taking steps to strengthen processes, service delivery and communication – will be critical in preventing similar failings in future. Public interest decisions are an important part of that process, helping to reinforce expectations and drive improvements across the sector.”
Last month, the LeO launched a call for input on its draft MCRP, a new framework aimed at improving the consistency and quality of how complaints are handled by legal service providers. The Law Society said it followed existing good practice within many well-run firms, but questioned how the ombudsman intended to drive adoption where standards are weak.
Law Society president Mark Evans said: “We support LeO’s efforts to improve complaints handling and enhance consumer confidence. A more transparent framework has the potential to promote earlier and proportionate resolution of complaints. However, effective implementation will depend less on the articulation of the model itself and more on the guidance and templates around it.
“Safeguards are needed to ensure early resolution is correctly applied and does not prioritise speed or commerciality over fairness. This is particularly important in complex, sensitive or vulnerable client cases.”
In its response to the LeO’s call, the Law Society said a range of resources will be critical to the success of the rollout, including high-quality guidance and templates to encourage engagement, and consumer-facing resources clearly outlining how clients can seek redress for service complaints falling under the LeO’s jurisdiction, and conduct complaints directed to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
Early resolution efforts must be correctly applied to avoid any risk of “prioritising speed or commerciality over fairness”, and the model must also take into account the increasing use of artificial intelligence in complaints, increasing the number, complexity and the likelihood of escalation, the Law Society said.
Evans said: “It is imperative that complaints’ processes adapt to how complaints are raised today. More consumers are using AI, which is increasing the number, complexity and the likelihood of escalation.
“Regulators and redress schemes must carefully consider the practical implications of this to ensure complaints processes remain fair, workable and effective.
“We encourage LeO to engage with professional indemnity insurers, representative bodies and regulators to ensure that the MCRP is sufficiently refines to enable it to operate well within the wider regulatory framework and works for all legal service providers under LeO’s remit.
“The Law Society remains willing to support LeO in refining and promoting a model that’s proportionate, workable and capable of delivering genuine improvements in complaints handling across the sector.”
