It’s been nearly two years since we launched our Excellence Mark programme of client service support for LawNet member firms. And during this time we’ve completed over 1,000 mystery shopping exercises which have revealed some interesting insights for our firms. One of the things that stands out is the discrepancy that still exists between the scores achieved for the walk-in mystery shopping enquiries and those made on the phone.

Unlike the Edwin Starr’s 1970’s song ‘War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing’, I hope you’ll agree that the same cannot be said for ATE insurance, which continues to provide valuable protection for customers and law firms, even post LASPO. The goal posts may have moved, but the need to ensure the client is aware of their risk exposure when bringing a claim for damages is still prevalent.

As soon as you see the word ‘expenses’, you think of duck houses and parliamentarians cooling their heels at Her Majesty’s pleasure. So when you read on this website yesterday that Adam Sampson had resigned as Chief Legal Ombudsman because of issues around his travel expenses, you might have been tempted to assume he was ‘at it’ as well. From everything I learned to write the story and since confirmed with various people familiar with the situation, this would be wrong.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has recently published a consultation paper on the regulation of consumer credit activities. There are three principal areas of concern: law firms undertaking debt collection and other work on behalf of clients under part 20; law firms giving clients time to pay their legal fees; and the SRA’s rationale for its proposal and what it perceives to be good for the consumer.

In a rather rare and strange moment of reflection, I found myself admitting that LASPO might indeed turn out to be a good thing. I’ve just had to re-read that statement; as an ATE insurer I couldn’t quite believe that I wrote that. Even more amazing, it might be a good thing for claimant law firms. I think I should explain.