Raj Tutt of Resolve Consultancy argues that while the decision to ‘name and shame’ lawyers over complaints cannot be changed, there is the opportunity to influence the type of information that is published so that it is fair to firms that genuinely try to deal with unhappy clients.

Among the many trials of being a managing partner in a smaller practice nowadays must be phone calls from new web services promising a stream of hot leads from willing clients. All you need to do is part with a measly few hundred quid for some kind of listing and then sit back while the work rolls in. The reality is, of course, somewhat different in some cases.

Moves are afoot to examine whether will-writing, probate and estate administration should be re-classified as a reserved activity and brought within the sole preserve of the legal profession. The review is conducted amidst a background of concerns about the quality of advice being received by consumers, particularly by those outside of the ‘legal’ framework.

Around 18 months ago, Andrew Grech, the managing director of Slater & Gordon (S&G), gave a presentation to a seminar run by accountants Baker Tilly. He began by showing a slick corporate video outlining the history and achievements of S&G. Two things struck me from this. First was a cut-away of S&G’s headquarters, at the top of which was a huge ‘Slater & Gordon’ sign, the kind of self-promotion UK firms simply don’t indulge in (at the moment).

This week marks the end of a consultation by the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) on its strategy for the next three years and its business plan for 2012-13. Among other things, it asked for initial responses on whether it should activate the power given to LeO in section 164 of the Legal Services Act to add a voluntary jurisdiction to its statutory one. The idea, says Elizabeth France, chair of LeO’s parent body, the Office for Legal Complaints, is to “fill gaps in access to free and fair redress for consumers of legal services”.