Public confidence in lawyers hinges on a reliable mechanism for addressing grievances. Recently, the Legal Services Board (LSB) took steps to improve the handling of first-tier complaints. The resulting package of work emphasises that approved regulators must ensure service providers estab
lish clear, accessible and efficient complaint management processes. It encourages transparency, timely resolutions and effective communication with complainants while upholding high service standards. The guidance also highlights the necessity for continuous improvement in complaints handling, to bolster public trust in legal services.
The Panel was actively involved in the research and policy development leading to the LSB’s guidance. We fully support the work done and think it is a positive step in the right direction, but marks only the beginning of a more comprehensive approach to complaint transparency and consumer empowerment.
The LSB’s measures do not fully address long-standing concerns raised by the Panel. Specifically, that legal services regulators should publish first-tier complaints data and standardise information on how individuals can lodge complaints against lawyers.
The Power of Complaints Data
For over a decade, we have advocated for the publication of first-tier complaint data by legal services regulators. While we understand concerns regarding the contextualisation of this data, we believe they are surmountable. Other sectors have successfully navigated these challenges. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) now publishes complaints data at an aggregate level. This should be the bare minimum expected from all regulators.
Publishing first-tier complaints data serves multiple purposes. It enhances transparency in the complaint process, fosters accountability and aids consumers in making informed decisions. It also offers a valuable opportunity for providers to review and understand how they can improve their services, identifying actions they can take to improve their professionalism, efficiency and most importantly consumer relationship management. By embracing complaints as feedback, providers can enhance their reputation, increase their attractiveness in the marketplace to grow revenue and reduce the cost of errors and other failures in service delivery.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) mandates annual complaint data publication from financial institutions that meet the reporting threshold, demonstrating a commitment to transparency and accountability. The FCA’s approach focuses on doing what is right, refining it and contextualising data over time.
In healthcare, published complaints data enables patients to make informed choices about providers. The Care Quality Commission in the UK aggregates patient complaints data, serving as a quality proxy—an essential starting point for regulators in the legal sector, where there is a dearth of quality indicators.
Standardised information
Another gap in the LSB’s revised guidance is the lack of encouragement for regulators to collaborate on standardised complaint information. There is no reason all legal services regulators cannot work together to create a cohesive piece of information for consumers, designed with consumer input.
In our view, information on first-tier complaints, including an indication of when consumers may escalate to the Legal Ombudsman, should be standardised, so that all consumers across all the regulated communities receive the same information, in the same format and with the same words. This information should have the benefit of being trialled and tested prior to its dissemination, and expert input sought on what is likely to work, e.g. from behavioural scientists who have contributed to similar developments in other sectors.
In addition to standardisation helping with the communication of consumers’ rights, it can also help with general communication. If all legal services regulators cannot collaborate to make this happen, they should at least commit to this approach for their regulated community. The current approach does not work. Allowing each provider to design their own form or words and or template is not effective. Also, providers are likely to appreciate the support by their regulators in this area.
The absence of clear pathways and effective communication on how to lodge grievances can deter individuals from voicing concerns. Given the imperfect regulatory framework, the oversight regulator and others must take every feasible step to address current shortcomings.
We urge a move toward publishing complaints data, standardising and testing information with consumers, and exploring practices from other sectors and countries e.g. a centralised complaints portal as seen in Australia.
Paul Crook, LSCP Panel Member