Confused? You should be, as LeO decides not to become ADR body


Steve Green

Green: “we want to explore alternative approaches”

In a further twist to an already complicated saga, the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has decided not to become a certified alternative dispute resolution (ADR) body for the time being.

Certification would double LeO’s deadline for complaints from six to 12 months. In a statement LeO said its “key priority” was to improve the “efficiency and quality” of its existing scheme.

LeO announced at the end of August that it was withdrawing its application to the Legal Services Board for certification as an ADR provider under an EU directive on the issue, to allow a “fuller consultation” to take place.

Steve Green, chair of the Office for Legal Complaints (OLC), LeO’s governing body, said yesterday that the two-month consultation had enabled the organisation to give “full and thorough consideration” as to how it should proceed.

“We are not giving up the ambition to become an ADR entity but we do want to explore alternative approaches to doing so. We will do this over the next six months.”

A spokesman for LeO said alternative approaches could be a “parallel scheme” or offering new ADR services.

He said the OLC had concluded that now was “not the right time to take on the additional risks and operational changes that would arise from proceeding with the scheme rule changes as proposed”.

The spokesman added that OLC confirmed that LeO would “ordinarily accept complaints that have first been considered by an ADR entity, where they are otherwise within the Ombudsman scheme” and promised that further guidance would follow.

Elisabeth Davies, chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel, warned in September that LeO’s decision to withdraw its application to become an approved ADR provider would cause confusion.

Writing on the panel’s website, she said LeO’s change of heart meant that although law firms would meet the requirements of the Legal Services Act by signposting to LeO, they may have to direct complaints to another ADR entity to comply with the directive, which applies to lawyers from 1 October 2015.

Tags:




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

Our latest special report, produced in association with Temple Legal Protection, looks at the role of after-the-event (ATE) insurance in commercial litigation post-LASPO. We are at a time when insurers, solicitors, clients and litigation funders work ever more closely to create funding packages that work for all of them, with conditional fee and even damages-based agreements now part of many law firms’ armoury.

Blog

6 December 2019

Still running Windows 7? Cyber-criminals are on your trail

When the end-of-life date arrives, it is estimated thone in four PCs will still be running Windows 7. This figure will be higher in industries slower to embrace IT developments – legal is likely to be amongst those.

Read More

Loading animation