Small firms must publish complaints data, consumer panel insists


Martin: no blanket exemption for small firms

Small law firms should not be exempt from any new requirement to publish complaints data, the Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP) has argued.

Dr Jane Martin, the new chair of the LSCP, said the information should be incorporated into the beefed-up ‘digital register’ planned by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

The SRA suggested, in a discussion paper published last autumn, that ‘small firms’ – those with up to four partners and turnover of up to £400,000 – could be exempted from the new requirements.

Dr Martin said the panel was against a “blanket exemption” for small firms, as it would mean that “firms which serve a considerable number of individuals, including vulnerable consumers, would not be obliged to provide this most important data set”.

However, she accepted that the SRA may need to have “parameters or thresholds”, such as number of complaints, in deciding whether data should be published.

Dr Martin agreed with the SRA that data from the Legal Ombudsman could be combined with details of first-tier complaints to give consumers a “better picture of the firm or individual they are contracting with”.

She also agreed that the SRA should take a “dual approach” in asking firms to publish collated data while gathering and publishing its own complaints data.

Dr Martin said consumers needed “pertinent information in a simple manner” before they chose a lawyer.

She said the panel’s “strong feeling” was that information about a firm’s specialism should be considered ‘core’ information, alongside basic firm details, enforcement action and indemnity insurance.

Dr Martin called on the SRA to “show leadership” by working with other legal regulators to produce a single digital register across the sector.

“The benefits of standardisation and consistency cannot be overestimated,” she said.

Dr Martin said the single register should be a feature of the Legal Choices website, as recommended by the Competition and Markets Authority in its report.

She added that the SRA’s “package of transparency measures”, including transparency on prices, should be consumer-tested.

“Consumer testing will play a crucial role in safeguarding against ineffective or even misleading information. Consumer research, testing, and evaluation, will also offer valuable insight into what information consumers prioritise, and the appropriate way to present said information.

“This would be particularly important when establishing the digital register.”




    Readers Comments

  • Richard Gray says:

    Can we have an obligatory register of complaints about McKenzie friends please? Then the public will know who not to go to.

    Actually they shouldn’t go to any of them because they should be outlawed! #LSB


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

No larger firm can ignore the demands of innovation – that was the clear message from our most recent roundtable: “The law firm of the future”, sponsored by LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions. It comes in many forms, predominantly but not just technology, and is not simply a case of automating process. Expertise and process are not mutually exclusive.

Blog

12 October 2018

The pros and cons of publishing prices

Our view is that transparency will help our clients to win in competitive situations. Published pricing helps to qualify customers before you commit time and resources to consultations and a sales process.

Read More