Rules confusion leads firms to “annoy” commercial clients by sending them to LeO

Print This Post

By Legal Futures

29 October 2010


Out of jurisdiction: a businessman finds out LeO can't deal with him

Confusion in the rules around complaints means law firms are having to “err on the side of annoyance” by referring commercial clients to the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) even though it does not have jurisdiction to deal with them, it has been claimed.

Lawyers at CMS Cameron McKenna said the problem has been caused by the Law Society’s practice note on client care, which requires solicitors to inform “all clients” of their right to take a complaint to the LeO; however, LeO’s jurisdiction only extends to “micro-enterprises” – defined as businesses with fewer than 10 employees and turnover/balance sheet worth less than €2m – charities and trusts.

A briefing note prepared by Peter Mansfield and Caroline Hall said firms with mixed practices were facing difficulties: “Should firms refer corporate clients to the LeO knowing that the ombudsman asserts no jurisdiction, or should they ignore the practice note? On balance, most firms are erring on the side of annoyance and referring all clients to the LeO for fear that telling aggrieved clients that they have no right to go to the ombudsman may do more harm than good. Nevertheless, some clarity on this issue would be welcomed, particularly in the brave new world of outcomes-focused regulation.”

The note acknowledged that many larger businesses would not want to use the LeO to resolve their disputes, “but does that mean that they should be denied that option?”.

The pair concluded: “It is obviously very early days for the new ombudsman and this may be a teething issue. Either it, or the over-arching Office for Legal Complaints, may resolve it in time. However, it betrays the difficulties in having several different bodies regulating one profession and it is unlikely to be a solitary example of conflicts arising. It will be interesting to see how these conflicts are managed.”

Tags: , , ,



One Response to “Rules confusion leads firms to “annoy” commercial clients by sending them to LeO”

  1. I have not read the guidance but as reported this sounds like a basic lack of common sense rather than a problem with the guidance. If the LeO asserts no jurisdiction then on what basis would law firms advising clients sensibly advise them that they have a right to complain?

  2. Richard Moorhead on October 29th, 2010 at 4:39 pm

Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

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

Legal Futures Blog

GDPR and the rise of ‘datanapping’ – the new threat to the pockets of law firms

Nigel Wright

You’ve heard about ransomware – a hacker infiltrates your IT systems, locking them down until you pay a ransom. Some studies now estimate that over 50% of businesses have experienced this type of attack in the last year, and it’s particularly prevalent within the legal sector. Previously, firms could protect themselves by having a solid disaster recovery plan in place to ensure they can get back up and running in the event of a disruption. However, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – the new EU-wide regime which comes in effect on 25 May 2018, irrespective of Brexit – means that this approach alone is no longer adequate and security measures must be strengthened to prevent attacks.

April 21st, 2017