Our findings clearly illustrate that many complaints to the Law Society are the result of poor handling by solicitors’ firms. While solicitors themselves must accept much of the responsibility for this, the Law Society ultimately has the power to regulate the profession, by issuing new practice rules.
We believe that the evidence clearly shows that voluntary guidance has not worked, and accordingly the time has come for the Law Society to introduce firstly, a rule requiring solicitors to issue letters of engagement, and secondly, a mandatory ‘client care’ rule.
As stated elsewhere, the use of letters of engagement has been recommended by the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman for a number of years. In 1995, we recommended to the Law Society that it should encourage its members to adopt our recommendation to solicitors that
they should issue letters of engagement.6
The Law Society’s view then, as now,30 was that encouraging solicitors to
use such letters is likely to be more effective than compelling them to do so. At that time, we were happy to support the Law Society’s voluntary approach so long as this worked. However, we feel that the results of our survey demonstrate that there is now a need for the Law Society to make the use of such letters mandatory.
In the past, the Law Society have also pointed to the fact that the Scottish Legal Aid Board will not pay for such letters to be sent to legally aided
clients. We did recommend to the Board in 19956 that it should pay for
However, only 19% of our sample were in receipt of legal aid. If this is a representative sample, this argument becomes less forceful. In any case, it might well be argued that even if firms were to cover the costs for sending out such letters themselves, the benefits of doing so would outweigh the cost.
A pro-forma word processed letter would not be difficult or costly to produce. The use of such letters should ensure that the terms agreed between the solicitor and client are clear from the outset. This should help to reduce the likelihood of complaints, saving time and money in the long term.
In our 1995 report6, we noted that research into the operation of the
English client care rule had shown that the mere fact that the rule existed did not necessarily mean that solicitors were complying with it. Accordingly, we decided on balance to support the Law Society’s decision not to introduce such a rule in Scotland, provided that this approach was seen to work.
We said at that time that it would be useful to review the position in a few years’ time to find out to what extent solicitors had acted voluntarily in respose to the guidance manual. We also said that, if we were to find widespread evidence that the legal profession had not responded positively, it may be necessary to change our position.
The current findings provide considerable support for the conclusion that many solicitors are not acting in accordance with the voluntary guidance. Given this evidence, we now believe that the Law Society must implement a compulsory ‘client care’ practice rule.
This should be modelled on the equivalent rule in England and Wales, practice rule 15. This rule requires every solicitors’ firm to have an in-house complaints procedure, with a named person to deal with complaints. All complaints against solicitors are required to go through the in-house procedure as a first step. If they are not resolved at that stage, they are then handled by the independent Office for the Supervision of Solicitors.
Recent research carried out in England into the operation of practice rule 15 has shown that, despite the fact that this rule is mandatory, solicitors are still not taking it seriously. The researchers concluded that such a rule was not enough in isolation to change the attitudes of solicitors, but that a change in culture among practitioners is required.27
It is therefore essential that the introduction of such a rule in Scotland should go hand in hand with an education campaign for solicitors about the importance of good client care and practice management. This should highlight the benefits of good, effective complaints systems.
Solicitors need to be convinced that complaints have positive aspects, and that a good complaints system can be to their advantage. An effective complaints handling procedure clearly shows that customer care is important to a business. This demonstrates that the business listens to its users, learns from its mistakes, and is continually trying to improve its service. Such a positive image can only assist a firm to attract new clients, and retain existing ones.
Moreover, as the Service First Charter guide How to deal with complaints
points out,31 information gained from complaints is free customer
feedback, and is accordingly the best form of free market research available to a business.
These benefits need to be emphasised to solicitors as part of an ongoing programme of training. We would suggest that such an education programme would best be carried out by the Law Society, given the influence which it has over the members of the profession. This programme should stress the advantages of good client care, thereby presenting a client care rule in a positive light. Such an approach is likely to be more effective in attempting to bring about the required change of attitude and culture amongst solicitors.