McFadden: Systemic failures
Lawyers take a defensive or confrontational approach to complaints “as standard, showing no empathy or understanding of clients’ experience”, the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has said.
It was “consistently finding” that legal providers were “failing in their culture and attitude” towards complaints, as well in their processes for handling them. These were “systemic” failures.
In a letter to the largest legal regulators, Chief Ombudsman Paul McFadden said LeO’s annual report on the complaints it dealt with, for the year to 31 March 2024 and published yesterday, “highlights a failure over time, and across the profession, to engage with the issues causing people to turn to LeO for an independent resolution”.
This was a problem for consumers, for LeO – as the volume of complaints caused delays in dealing with them – and for the legal sector, “which is having to pay for our service to be resourced to meet consistently high demand”.
LeO is currently consulting on a 10% increase in its budget for 2025/26, to £19.8m as it struggles to reduce the backlog of complaints.
Mr McFadden said he wanted to move towards “greater standardisation around the core tenets of good complaints handling” across the different branches of the profession.
“These include, for example, early resolution, the quality of investigations and responses, processes and timescales – while retaining appropriate flexibility for particular sectors.”
LeO plans to create and implement model complaints handling procedures and standards in the next financial year.
The letter said other culture failures included lawyers not acknowledging or responding to complaints, or not engaging with the client or LeO after a complaint has been made, and refusing to acknowledge clear failings in service – or accepting failings, but not attempting to put things right.
There were frequent problems too with providers having “inconsistent, complex complaints processes that put clients through too many stages and hoops”; creating barriers to complaining at all or about certain issues, including giving misleading information about what LeO will investigate; and “requiring clients who complain to comply with unrealistic and unreasonable requests, such as attending the office for a meeting”.
Mr McFadden also highlighted “insincere apologies”, such as telling clients, “I’m sorry if you feel that…” or “I have been told to apologise”.
He accused some lawyers of incorrectly quoting LeO guidance, “giving clients the impression it isn’t worth taking their complaint further”, and offering remedies with the condition they are in full and final settlement of future unrelated complaints.
The 2023/24 data showed that LeO disposed of 7,918 complaints in the year, 52% of which were through early resolution. Personal injury complaints were the most likely to be resolved this way (66%) and family complaints the least (40%).
The other cases went on for investigation and, where necessary, an ombudsman’s decision. The legal provider’s standard of service was found not good enough in 69% of cases, a rising proportion compared to previous years.
The highest incidence of poor service was in conveyancing (76%) and the lowest in family law – but still stood at 58%.
Residential conveyancing remained the area of practice that accounted for the biggest share of complaints, at 33%, with delays meaning the transaction did not complete by an agreed date the most common issue.
Of all the complaints LeO upheld, the biggest share – one in four – were about poor communication, followed by 17% about delay and failure to progress legal matters, and costs (11%).
The areas where costs featured the most among upheld complaints were family law (21%) and litigation (16%).
LeO found the provider’s complaints handling to be inadequate in 46% of cases it investigated.
Where it directed a remedy, 52% included compensation for distress and inconvenience, with an average value of £458.
In 15% of cases, LeO recommended the lawyer refund, reduce or waive their costs. A refund was the most common direction, with an average value of £2,505.
Compensation for financial loss was directed in just 7% of cases.
Andrew Lawrence 
Anonymous 
It is beyond belief that the Ombudsman is so clueless. Does he not realise that solicitors’ professional indemnity may insist on the solicitors’ making no admission of fault (or making an apology which might later be interpreted as tantamount to an adnission of fault) in the event of any complaint. It is unfair to characterise phrases such as “I’m sorry you feel let down” as “insincere”. Why are the regulators so utterly clueless?