Barristers seek carve-outs from telling clients about complaints procedures

Print This Post

By Legal Futures

29 September 2010


Cell: the best place to provide complaints-handling information?

Barristers need some carve-outs from the requirements to tell clients about their complaints procedure, the Legal Services Board (LSB) is to be told.

New rules coming into force from 6 October, when the Legal Ombudsman goes live, mean that all lawyers must notify new clients in writing at the time of engagement, or existing clients “at the next appropriate opportunity”, of their right to make a complaint, including to the ombudsman at the conclusion of the in-house process.

Speaking at the recent Bar Standards Board (BSB) meeting, Charles Hollander QC – chairman of the board’s standards committee – suggested that the difficulties this could cause barristers in some circumstances were the result of the LSB officials who drafted it not understanding the realities of barristers’ practice.

Mr Hollander pointed out that barristers often do not meet their clients – board member Sam Stein QC added that sometimes they never even learn the name of the client if just providing advice. Mr Hollander also said it would be strange if the first thing a barrister had to do when meeting a client in a police cell was to give them a copy of their complaints procedure.

However, as the wording of the provisions is “innocuous”, there may be ways around them, such as the solicitor providing the information on the barrister’s behalf.

Mr Stein, who chairs the quality assurance committee, said the BSB planned to make proposals to the LSB that would clarify the situation.

Tags: , ,



Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

Disruptive innovation: the Christensen thesis hits law schools and legal services

Roger Smith

A report from the Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation warns that law schools in the US are “in crisis” and doomed unless they must respond positively to the “disruption of the traditional model for the provision of legal services”. The report relishes the coming of Armageddon by a sector whose financial viability it says will soon be choked off by the transformation of the legal market. How does this thesis stack up from the other side of the Atlantic?

February 28th, 2017