When is a quality mark not a quality mark?

Print This Post

22 February 2011

Restell: proper information would be far more useful for consumers than quality marks

Posted by Louise Restell, head of public and legal affairs at Legal Futures Associate Russell Jones & Walker

So only 200 conveyancing firms have signed up to the Law Society’s conveyancing quality scheme? I don’t know how many conveyancing firms there are, but I’m going to make an educated guess that there’s several more than that.

Perhaps the ones who haven’t signed up have read the Legal Services Consumer Panel’s research into quality in legal services. Or perhaps not.

buying viagra in a canadian pharmacy

Either way, there is a real question about how valuable quality marks are when buying legal services.

Consumers aren’t stupid – they are perfectly able to understand the purpose of a quality mark. The problem, as reported on Legal Futures in November, is that consumers assume all solicitors are technically competent anyway and closely monitored by a regulator (don’t know where they got that impression from…). So they are far more likely to go on personal recommendations when choosing a lawyer and judge them on their service standards.

Quality marks are valued by consumers in other areas. The Trust Mark scheme run by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) covers a wide range of trades, from builders to tree surgeons to satellite TV installers. But these are unregulated trades where a wise consumer would do more than just rely on word of mouth .

The OFT also runs a consumer codes approval scheme, covering trade bodies as diverse as carpet fitters, direct selling organisations and our old favourite, professional will-writers. These codes focus primarily on customer care issues, such as clear information, fair contracts and independent complaints-handling, rather than the standard of the work per se. They are probably less understood by consumers, but in unregulated areas (yes, including will-writing) they do have some value.

The difference with lawyers is that they are already regulated and, even if this regulation isn’t properly understood, are seen to be so by consumers. Far more useful than just slapping quality marks all over websites or shop windows would be providing consumers with proper information about the law to help them identify and solve their own problems and know the standards they should expect when they do ultimately feel they have to go to a lawyer. Take this as my overt plug for public legal education.

My own personal favourite quality mark is Investors in People, something any organisation can work for (indeed I worked for them for a number of years). It’s been around for over 20 years now and I would say quite a few people have heard of it. You can see the Investors in People plaque gracing many a reception desk and foyer, so it’s obviously meant for consumers to see and think ‘ah yes, they invest in their people, marvellous’. But do any of them know what it really means?

I rest my case.

Tags: , ,

2 Responses to “When is a quality mark not a quality mark?”

  1. It is a great shame that the Law Societys’ drive for quality does not extend to it’s own website pages relating to the CQS scheme. It is riddled with unfinished documents (the Word “deleted” markups are in some, there are links and references to documents which just don’t exist relating to locums and a CQS helpline persdon admitted to me today that the documents had not actually been finsished yet.

    There’s a tin of chocholates called Quality Street but the contents are nothing special

  2. Paul Murden on February 22nd, 2011 at 3:23 pm
  3. The number of organisations applying for CQS accreditation is now substantially higher than the 200 referred to (Law Soc. confirmed this last week). The main thrust of it is to assure the probity of the people and organisations offering conveyancing services. The take up will be further assured if the CML make it a pre-requisite for panel membership.

  4. Christopher Gough on February 22nd, 2011 at 8:36 pm

Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

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

Legal Futures Blog

Bitcoin: The new frontier or the next bubble?

Joe Smith Saunderson House

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency – a digital currency that uses cryptographic techniques to regulate the generation of units and to verify the transfer of funds. It is largely anonymous and unregulated, and underpinned by a digital ledger technology known as blockchain. In terms of the market, there is a limit of 21m Bitcoin that can ever be created. It is very narrowly held, with an estimated 40% of Bitcoin held by just 1,000 ‘investors’ and only a third having been traded in the last year. However, there are also a number of synthetic products through which one can gain access to Bitcoin, including contracts for difference, ETFs (exchange-traded funds) and, as of December, exchange-traded futures.

February 15th, 2018