Legal Ombudsman outlines test for dealing with complaints about MDPs

Print This Post

19 September 2014


Complaint: Legal Services Act ambiguity

The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has introduced a policy for dealing with complaints about organisations which provide non-legal as well as legal services, such as some alternative business structures (ABSs) and, shortly, accountants who offer probate advice.

It comes as the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) steps up work to see how it can allow regular law firms to offer non-legal services without having to become ABSs.

The Legal Services Act 2007 makes it clear that once a person is authorised to undertake a reserved legal activity, then any legal activity they provide – reserved or otherwise – falls within LeO’s remit.

However, LeO said the Act is less clear about whether its jurisdiction should extend to cover non-legal activities undertaken by authorised persons.

In response to this “ambiguity”, LeO said it will accept complaints “where we consider that the complaint is about a legal service”, and will apply the following test:

“Is the complaint about a service which consists of or includes a legal activity as defined in section 12(3) of the Act? That is,

  1. Is the complaint about a reserved legal activity? Or
  2. Does the activity complained about include one or both of the following–
    1. the provision of legal advice or assistance in connection with the application of the law or the resolution of legal disputes;
    2. the provision of representation in connection with the application of the law or resolution of legal disputes?”

LeO will run this policy as a pilot for 12 months, after which it will be reviewed. Its policy statement concluded: “The Legal Ombudsman’s view of what constitutes a legal service may differ to the views of approved regulators, licensing authorities and the Legal Services Board.”

As the board of the SRA flagged up earlier this week when approving changes to the rules to make it easier for multi-disciplinary practices to become ABSs, the regulator is looking at the extent to which it can level the playing field by enabling non-ABS law firms to offer standalone non-legal services – for example, if a City law firm wanted to offer accountancy services.

However, whatever changes can be made will stop short of changes to ownership structures – law firms will not be able to bring in non-lawyer owners without becoming ABSs.

The work forms part of a review of the separate business rule, which the SRA has indicated it is keen to scrap.

Legal Futures understands that although the board will discuss it next month, a decision on its future is unlikely to be made then.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,



Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

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

Legal Futures Blog

Three reasons why you should be more vigilant about the emails you send in 2018

Ben Mitchell DocsCorp

In December 2017, the Information Commissioner’s Office (reported that data security incidents between April and June 2017 had increased by 15% compared to the previous year. This is nothing new – data breaches have been on the rise for years. Yet law firms are often more concerned about protecting sensitive information from external threats than from a far more likely cause: human error. Human error was behind the forwarding of confidential plans from The Bank of England to The Guardian. The sender included the wrong recipient in the email and, ever since, autocomplete has been disabled and staff at the UK’s main financial regulator must now enter every single address manually.

January 17th, 2018