Welcome to the Independent test of the new Legal Complaints Service...

For at least 30 years folks have been critical of the way in which complaints about legal professionals are handled and of the way in which "the profession" is regulated.

Following the Clementi Review in 2004 our Government promised us a major shake-up and, on 30th October 2007, the new Legal Services Act was granted Royal Assent.

If you are new to this, you may want to read the history page (please return here when done)...

It is my aim to openly and publicly test the new complaints procedures to find out: -

Details of how this test will work, in the form of a Q&A, will follow shortly... but first...

How will your "test" work?

Since 1997 I have been testing things for a living.  Very often this involves thinking up new ways and new scenarios to break whatever is being tested.  This is NOT the approach I will be taking here.  What I propose here is a simple functional test under better than ideal conditions.

I propose to raise a complaint about attempted overcharging by a firm of solicitors in June 2008.  Furthermore, this is set against a long-running background of earlier overcharging and other professional misconduct which the Law Society failed to investigate before.  New evidence came to light in 2008 and a judgement was handed down on 25th June 2008 which deals with a number of aspects of those original complaints.  The evidence is that the Law Firm concerned LIED to the Law Society in order to hide their own failings and misconduct.  What followed in 2004, and was finally admitted on oath in March 2008, was termed by one of the Law Lords as "A most serious disciplinary offence" - indeed, it cannot be far removed from criminal fraud!

Also admitted in 2008 was Inadequate Professional Service (IPS) - the complete abandonment of the mandatory Client Care and Costs Information Code 1999 (Rule 15) and many other (perhaps less serious) breaches of the Law Society Rules too.  There was also proven Professional Negligence - but the "regulators" don't go there.  Despite this, there is certainly enough that the SRA can and should deal with... in the public interest.

Why is this "better than ideal conditions" ?

This is a complaint about the professional misconduct and dishonesty (and worse) of someone else's solicitor.  The complaint must be submitted via the new LCS - but they won't deal with it - they will pass it to the SRA.  This is better than ideal for two reasons...

1. The Law Society already has a substantial file to refer to - i.e. their own.
2. The public nature of this complaint (i.e. via this web site) is likely to keep them focused.  We can expect them to minimise delays and do their very best because they won't know who will be watching.

Ok - testing under such conditions is not entirely realistic... but if it turns out that the system is "broken" even under these conditions... then what hope IS there for everyone else?

Are you looking for compensation from the Law Society?

No!  This is not possible under the rules - see here (new window)

"If the solicitor has engaged in misconduct, the Solicitors Regulation Authority can take action in the public interest. But the SRA can't pay you compensation."

Will you name the solicitors concerned?

Yes.  The Firm, the Partners involved, the Barristers they appointed, their Legal Executive and their costs draughtsman.

Look to the left... you will see links to the Bar Standards Board, the ALCD and ILEX.

One thing the Clementi Review highlighted was the need for a single point of contact for all legal complaints.  I cannot see that this has been fulfilled to date - it seems one must still refer complaints to the individual "regulators".  It is still confusing but I think I know who these are and there is (of course) a large overlap in the complaints and a lot of common ground.

By doing this publicly the various organisations cannot say that they didn't hear the full complaint - which is one of conspiracy.  They can (hopefully) decide the "parts" that fall under their "jurisdiction" - and deal with those people.

Is there a danger that someone (named) will complain?

I think the risk is minimal.  The Human Rights Act (Article 10) certainly grants us freedom of speech and freedom of expression.  We have "open government" - you can scrutinize any Office.  I think it unlikely those complained of will take any action - I have been openly critical of them since 2003 and (apart from a couple of feeble and unsuccessful attempts to intimidate my (British) ISP) - they have done nothing, despite losing numerous Clients.

This approach certainly feels morally right - if one person avoids the problems I have encountered by avoiding contact with this Firm or the individuals - then that is a positive result.  I just hope they fare better elsewhere - 17,000+ complaints year on year is worrying enough - please - stay out of the named "frying-pan" - you have been warned - but try equally hard to avoid the (unnamed) "fire".  For some tips on this click here.

Why do you think this will work?

Perhaps I don't ... for a tester a failed test is STILL a good result.  Having said that, I am trying to give the odds a little "nudge" in my favour and I have a hunch this may be the way to do it.

The hunch?  Well, check out the ALCD link on the left.  My complaints to the Association of Law Costs Draughtsmen pre-date this site - so far the results look promising - the best to date.  Are the ALCD a better "regulator"?  Or is it simply that I have quoted the findings of a prominent judge publicly?.  Google "costs draughtsman" or "alcd" and you will find me - click here - is it embarrassing for them, perhaps? Does this improve their focus?  Time will tell.

Who are "Lexcel" the OLSO and the OLSCC?

The short answer is "follow the links on the left for more information".

Lexcel are the Law Society's equivalent of Quality Assurance auditors.  The evidence shows that this firm should never have been considered in the first place - let alone awarded the Lexcel Mark.  A separate complaint is needed to cover this.  Click the link for more details.

The OLSCC should be very interested in my test - it is their Office.  I will certainly make them aware.

The Ombudsman is where you go if you are dissatisfied with the LCS - see here.  I think it prudent to give the OLSO warning "just in case" - if I do eventually need to contact the Ombudsman then their life might be made easier if they assign a case number early and follow events as they unfold (i.e. here)

I want to read more.  Where do I start?

Same place as me... I must submit my complaint to the LCS - top link on the left under "Navigation".

As stated above the LCS will NOT deal with it themselves - it will be passed to the SRA - Second link.

The third link (on the left) is an overview for all the "regulators".  The remaining links are specifics about individuals.

Finally, it is always difficult to get ones head around other peoples complex legal problems.  Solicitors, of course, love to prolong litigation, not least because the more complex matters become the better the chances of pulling the wool over the judge's eyes.  I have problems understandeing even some of the best written web sites - and I am not a good writer.  Don't worry, it is the SRA's job to get to the truth.  The Law Firm knows the case inside out and it is their duty to co-operate with and  assist the Law Society (SRA) - ha-ha? - will they lie again? -  ok - well I can straighten out any misunderstandings - they need only call or email me

I would still welcome your feedback.  Can I clarify anything?  If it makes it clearer there is less chance the SRA can misunderstand.  Please email me your comments.  Thanks :-)

And finally...

At risk of repetition... can YOU help? ... thanks...

[Refresh]