Friday, June 21, 2013

Naming & Shaming powers 'reserved' : Consumers still in the dark on crooked lawyers as identities of rogue solicitors & law firms yet to be published by Legal Ombudsman

Legal OmbudsmanMuch promised Naming & shaming of rogue lawyers yet to happen in England & Wales MORE THAN TWO YEARS after much debate and numerous consultations which received widespread support from consumer groups and the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) for the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) of England & Wales to name & shame rogue solicitors & law firms in published complaints data, the policy decision taken by the LeO in April 2012 to publish the identities of lawyers involved in client complaints, has not yet resulted in publication of a single solicitor or law firm’s identity.

Shedding some light on the lack of publication of lawyer’s names to-date, the latest annual report covering 2012-1013 from the Legal Ombudsman states “In one of the key decisions taken during the year related to the publication of the statistics about ombudsman decisions. While there was general agreement that it was desirable for us to publish as much information about the nature of our decisions as possible, lawyers’ representatives were strongly opposed to naming the lawyers involved. Consumer groups on the other hand argued for as much information as possible about lawyers involved in our cases to be placed in the public domain.”

“In the event, following a lengthy consultation process, our board decided that statistical data about all ombudsman decisions should be published, including the area of law, the nature of the complaint, the outcome of the complaint and the name of the lawyer or firm involved. We began publishing this data from autumn 2012. The initial media interest which this engendered has rapidly subsided and as the information builds, we may soon be able to begin discerning some patterns over time.”

“As well as the routine publication of data, the board decided to reserve to itself the power in individual cases to publish the full decision, including the name of the lawyer (but redacting the name of the complainant) where it considers that it is in the public interest to do so. No such publication took place during the year covered by this report.”

However, many consumers and some consumer protection groups had expected the LeO to begin publishing the identities of rogue solicitors and their law firms last year.

Speaking to Diary of Injustice nearly a year ago last July 2012 Chief Ombudsman, Adam Sampson said at the time : “Our Board wanted to ensure that we’re certain about the accuracy of the data we report in the first data set of published Ombudsman decisions and that the lawyers and law firms who’ll be named have an opportunity to point out any discrepancies prior to publication.

“As a result, and on this occasion only, we have this week contacted each of the 750+ lawyers and law firms that have been the subject of our decisions during the first quarter to tell them what we’ll publish. We will then deal with any feedback, where required, in the weeks that follow before publishing the data. The level of feedback and subsequent work needed following this process will determine how soon we can publish the first set of data.”

The Legal Ombudsman had originally announced in November 2011 they would be going ahead with ‘naming & shaming’ in early 2012, reported by Diary of Injustice here : Scots to be ‘kept in dark’ on details of crooked lawyers while Legal Ombudsman’s ‘naming & shaming’ policy ‘will protect’ consumers in England & Wales

Diary of Injustice reported on the Legal Ombudsman’s consultation on naming & shaming here : Legal Ombudsman moving to name & shame crooked lawyers in England & Wales, crooked Scottish solicitors records to remain protected by secrecy for now

Which logoConsumer group Which? gave their backing to the Legal Ombudsman’s plans to identify crooked lawyers in England & Wales. A spokesperson for Which? told Diary of Injustice last year : “Which? strongly supports the principle of the LeO publishing complaints data under a strict and published policy , including in some circumstances the name of the law firm concerned. We set out our position in our response to the LeO consultation (page 51: opening up regulatory data)) pointing out that it is the expectation of Government that complaints handling bodies are as transparent as possible.”

Legal Services Consumer PanelSpeaking on the LeO’s plans to publish complaints data & the identities of law firms who perform poorly for clients, Elisabeth Davies, Chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP), said at the time : “Research shows that UK consumers are now leaving well over 100 million comments online every year about their experience with businesses across the economy. Lawyers cannot escape this welcome emergence of consumer power, but instead should seek and then use such feedback to improve the service they offer.

She continued : “The courts will decide the fate of the Solicitors From Hell website. However, such websites fill a vacuum that exists because official complaints data about lawyers is not publically available to help consumers identify good quality lawyers. The Panel will continue to push the Legal Ombudsman to name those law firms who regularly provide poor service.”

oftThe Office of Fair Trading (OFT) also supports the Legal Ombudsman’s naming & shaming policy. The OFT stated in its submission (pdf) to the LeO’s consultation : “We appreciate that you need to balance the interests of consumers with the reputational impact on firms and individual lawyers. However, the OFT remains firmly of the view that the publication of named complaints data could incentivise legal service providers, due to reputational considerations, to maintain and/or improve the quality of service they provide to consumers.We believe that essential data would include:

* The number of complaints made against individual firms and lawyers;
* The nature of those complaints and placing them into categories to help see if a pattern develops;
* The ratio of complaints upheld against an individual firm or lawyer;
* Areas of law where complaints tend to focus;
* Which aspects of service the complaints tend to focus; and
* Whether the complaints tend to come from private or publically funded cases.

However, to-date, no solicitor has yet been named by the LeO, prompting fears in some quarters that protests from the legal profession and alleged murmurs of potential legal action by English lawyers if their names appear in complaints data, has put the brakes on total transparency.

Asked for comment today on lack of naming & shaming by the LeO, a spokesperson for the Legal Services Consumer Panel issued the following statement :

“Just to clarify that LeO publish two types of information: · Details of cases that involve a formal ombudsman decision · Individual cases where this is in the public interest test”

“In relation to the former, this information has been published for a while now. When LeO consulted on this, the Panel wanted all complaints involving a remedy (i.e. those that are mediated as well as ombudsman decisions) to be published. In addition, this information would benefit from having more prominence than it does currently.”

“In relation to the latter, as this is an emergency publication power, given the short period that it has been operational it’s difficult to know whether there have been circumstances when LeO hasn’t used these powers but should have. It would be better to assess this once the scheme has been operational for a longer period.”

For now, consumers are still in the dark over which solicitors & law firms fair better than others in complaints data. Exactly when the Legal Ombudsman does identify rogue lawyers and law firms remains to be decided.

Historically, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has refused to name any Scottish solicitors or law firms involved in complaints, citing reasons of confidentiality and the terms of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 for the prohibition of naming crooked lawyers in Scotland. It is not thought the SLCC in its current format will ever identify rogue lawyers.

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is absolutely disgraceful.

Even when given the comprehensive support of the OFT and Consumer Protection Organisations the response of the Legal Ombudsman in the face of lawyers lobbying is to BACK OFF AND SHUT UP.

Clearly a new Ombudsman - one with a spine - is urgently needed.

Anonymous said...

So lawyers win the day again and cant be named or shamed?
So really Goodwin should have stuck to using his law degree and he'd still be a Sir

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a lot of excuses for doing nothing.If they'd have stuck to their guns the crooked lawyers names would be published by now.

Anonymous said...

They are all masters of the mind game. They always attempt to convince you there is a system in place to protect you all when they are a confederacy of deceivers. The latest one was the creating of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. See how far you process your complaint with those bums.

A confederacy of deceivers who claim to provide justice for ruined clients when their real aim is domination over your life for profit, to save your lawyer to abuse their next victim. You stay ruined. This sophisticated mob don't fool us. Power is always skewed in the lawyers favour. Why do you think there are so many corrupt ones, there is no reason for them not to be so.

Self regulation and collective self interest cannot be separated. This is why it can never protect the public.

Anonymous said...

Like the new design of the blog DOI. Consumers still in the dark, I am not surprised bearing in mind how in many areas the press have been infiltrated by the Legal Profession. How many have lawyer journalists. It is all about control not cleaning up the lawyers cesspit of corruption. Has the Legal Ombudsman been infiltrated too, of course. Another front for the lawyers who wield power to their advantage to conceal the criminal gang they really are.

Anonymous said...

The complaints system boots the S**t out of those who complain by doing nothing or acting to pervert justice further. It is anti client and hostile because lawyers want to have the right to abuse clients because the latter are just money to them. They see stealing clients money and other abuses as their right. Hardly a balanced profession.

Anonymous said...

You are correct.The Leo will face a judicial review if they publish names of solicitors.I understand it was discussed at the Law Society so they must be supporting it.

Anonymous said...

These people have achieved domination peacefully because they cover each others backs, and this is justice they tell us. I assume all lawyers are client robbers, because to assume they are honest is madness.

Anonymous said...

Naming and shaming powers reserved. The heading says it all, about the cowards that are tasked with naming these criminals. Lawyers have got everyone by the balls, except the DOI and Sunday Mail.

Good report DOI but I am not surprised.

Anonymous said...

What are they waiting for?A blessing from God or something?
Especially after the hospital scandal yesterday in the news and the cover ups there this smacks of more cover up and it just happens to be about liwyers again!

Anonymous said...

Everything is reserved when lawyers reputations are at stake. They are all scum.

Anonymous said...

They don't want to have their ex clients communicating with future clients, hence the naming and shaming powers reserved. Perhaps the Legal Ombudsman has been drawn into the Law Society of Britain's network.

It is all about killing off public communication. Who really controls the UK? Who controls the world?

Anonymous said...

Keep up the pressure.

Anonymous said...

The SLCC will never tell on a crooked lawyer because it is funded by them to stop people getting any justice.

Anonymous said...

I realise this site writes about Scotland but I hope you are able to cover more news about the Legal Ombudsman because I have been asking them to name my solicitors and publish all of the complaint and all the detail about the threats made to me by my solicitor if I complained against him.

My own experience tells me the Legal Ombudsman is not much better than your SLCC at least for me.Maybe others have had a better service from them but because I used a well known solicitor it seems I am left to carry the can for a fraudulent house purchase where he kept the money and I ended up with nothing.

Anonymous said...

Self regulation and self interest go hand in hand and this fact makes self regulation and justice mutually exclusive. The complaints system is there to save lawyers.

Anonymous said...

“As well as the routine publication of data, the board decided to reserve to itself the power in individual cases to publish the full decision, including the name of the lawyer (but redacting the name of the complainant) where it considers that it is in the public interest to do so. No such publication took place during the year covered by this report.”

absolute garbage from the legal ombudsman

it is in the public interest to name and shame lawyers any time not just when they feel like doing it or not as the case seems to be

Anonymous said...

I am not surprised, this group have one hell of a lot to hide. They enjoy ruining people's lives and have been doing it for centuries. They are power freaks who know the Law Society is their rock to keep them out of the brown stuff. When you trust a lawyer you lose all of your rights to justice, that is why they are responsible for massive injustice.

Anonymous said...

They are against publication because they know what they are and that potential clients will refuse to deal with them. Naming and shaming is in clients interests, not naming and shaming is in lawyers interests. While this is clearly obvious the fact remains that these people deal with billions of pounds of their clients assets and in any other walk of life this would not be tolerated.

In my opinion they are a vile profession and people have had enough of being robbed and then battered to a pulp by their crooked union for complaining. The Law Societies of the United Kingdom are bureaucratic corruption in action and the complaints system needs to be outed by naming and shaming these legalized thieves. My advice where practicable stay away from them, don't learn the hard way.

Diary of Injustice said...

An unpublished comment on 22 June 2013 at 15:15 which contained details of a complaint identifying a London based solicitor, their law firm and members of staff at the Legal Ombudsman should be sent together with further verifiable details to scottishlawreporters@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

In my opinion the Legal Ombudsman is simply another branch of the Law Society, like the SSDT, Ministry of Justice, any bureaucracy to do with lawyers has been hyjacked by them.

Anonymous said...

The Lawyers control everything, they are so extreme they would control your thoughts if they could. At least DOI are telling what we already know that the Ombudsman is as useful to clients and a Chocolate fireguard. Anyone out there who expects this system to change is out of touch with reality, only clients can name and shame lawyers, only clients are the victims, the Ombudsman has not the stomach for the fight. Everywhere the public complain about a lawyer is controlled by lawyers. It's over the top the power these Teflon criminals have.

Anonymous said...

Their idea is to change the perception of the public, not to change their ways or to stop crooked lawyers from robbing their clients blind?

Anonymous said...

Consumers still in the dark on crooked lawyers as identities of rogue solicitors & law firms yet to be published by Legal Ombudsman, because the latter is just the same as the SLCC, a front created to try and convince us things will change.

Only clients can expose crooked lawyers. The Ombudsmen is another branch of the Law Society. They change the names but never let the corrupt cat out of the bag that all lawyers are professional criminals who have the perfect system for avoiding prosecution for their cyclical crimes against their clients.

When you trust a lawyer you are trusting a thief who is allowed to steal your assets legally. If a client could steal from a lawyer the court doors would welcome that client with open arms to prosecute him. Crime is political in the UK, depending on which faction you belong to you can escape punishment or be taken to court. We are not equal before the law.

Anonymous said...

Naming and shaming is already taking place where I live. Two young girls are handing out leaflets clearly showing criminal activity by not only one lawyer, and no reaction from those who should be responsible, and indeed quite an effort being made to " cover -up" from those same people.

Anonymous said...

Hopefully your exposure of the lack of naming and shaming will kickstart some more attention to the Legal Ombudsman.

Also I noticed in that comment from the Legal services Consumer panel they are talking about the naming power not being in operation for long enough.Well after reading all your postings about it and the consultations make the Consumer panel can now do a full review because one year on is long enough to gather some statistics.

Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Gotta admire how you have exposed the legal profession for being just as crooked as the bankers!
Thinking about it now they are probably partners in crime anyway its just that we never got to know much about it until now!

Anonymous said...

The level of protection this profession have and maintain should be a warning to every client that they will stitch you up because there is no deterrent.

Anonymous said...

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”

This should be the Law Society's Mission Statement.

Sums the Legal Profession up perfectly, deception is their trademark but hidden by pernicious self regulation which is designed to make sure ruined clients can never contact each other and they stay ruined. Lawyers are against

Naming and shaming.

A Register of Interests.

The Civil Courts Review.

They destroyed the LPLA Act which was mean to protect you the client.

They starve people out by freezing disability benefits, after covering up their occupational injuries.

The have been responsible for client suicides.

They refuse to prosecute lawyers who have stolen clients financial assets.

The refuse to represent you against the lawyer who ruined you.

They have friends in the Legal Aid Board to stop you getting financial assistance to sue a lawyer.

They take on cases where their own insurers would be responsible for paying your damages, hence you never get any.

Is it any wonder why the Naming and Shaming powers have been "reserved." These criminals have been ruining lives for decades because their secret complaints system allows them to escape punishment. And it is because of journalists at the DOI and Sunday Mail these revelations are in the public domain.

I do not exaggerate when I tell you all trusting a lawyer is a dangerous thing to do. Avoid them if you can. I have the unshakable conviction that proper naming and shaming will kill thousands of Law Firms and put lawyers out of work. This is what they fear, they don't care about their clients lives on jot. If they protected their clients the way they protect each other their reputations would not be in the gutter today.

Anonymous said...

Is the Legal Ombudsman actually suggesting it is not currently in the public interest to name and shame corrupt lawyers and law firms?

There should be an investigation into this and more publicity because the Legal Ombudsman has spent plenty money on these consultations and all these ifs and buts deciding to name lawyers and we still do not have a result years later.

English newspapers get onto this please!

Anonymous said...

You see it takes a Scotsman to start a debate!Peter is off to help the English again!isn't this just great?Scotland lending a helping hand south of the border to make sure these ombudsmen keep their promise to name and shame crooked lawyers!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”

This should be the Law Society's Mission Statement.

Sums the Legal Profession up perfectly, deception is their trademark but hidden by pernicious self regulation which is designed to make sure ruined clients can never contact each other and they stay ruined. Lawyers are against

Naming and shaming.

A Register of Interests.

The Civil Courts Review.

They destroyed the LPLA Act which was mean to protect you the client.

They starve people out by freezing disability benefits, after covering up their occupational injuries.

The have been responsible for client suicides.

They refuse to prosecute lawyers who have stolen clients financial assets.

The refuse to represent you against the lawyer who ruined you.

They have friends in the Legal Aid Board to stop you getting financial assistance to sue a lawyer.

They take on cases where their own insurers would be responsible for paying your damages, hence you never get any.

Is it any wonder why the Naming and Shaming powers have been "reserved." These criminals have been ruining lives for decades because their secret complaints system allows them to escape punishment. And it is because of journalists at the DOI and Sunday Mail these revelations are in the public domain.

I do not exaggerate when I tell you all trusting a lawyer is a dangerous thing to do. Avoid them if you can. I have the unshakable conviction that proper naming and shaming will kill thousands of Law Firms and put lawyers out of work. This is what they fear, they don't care about their clients lives on jot. If they protected their clients the way they protect each other their reputations would not be in the gutter today.

24 June 2013 10:20
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Naming & Shaming a crooked Scottish lawyer is not just good practice it is your civic duty to let others know about these criminals in our midst?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Is the Legal Ombudsman actually suggesting it is not currently in the public interest to name and shame corrupt lawyers and law firms?

There should be an investigation into this and more publicity because the Legal Ombudsman has spent plenty money on these consultations and all these ifs and buts deciding to name lawyers and we still do not have a result years later.

English newspapers get onto this please!

24 June 2013 11:50

This delay is simply because of threats to the legal ombudsman. Lawyers using all of their sleekit ways to suppress the truth to allow them to continue their nefarious crimes against the people?

Anonymous said...

Those drunk on power are always the last to see that their game is up. Further attempts at secrecy will only drive the profession downwards into oblivion where the public demand change.