Tuesday, May 01, 2012

Consumers ‘locked out of debate’ as Scottish Legal Complaints Commission carries out yet more research on how solicitors handle complaints

SLCCScottish Legal Complaints Commission commissions more research on complaints against solicitors. FOURTEEN MILLION POUNDS and FOUR YEARS LATER, with little to show for it in the way of struck-off ‘crooked lawyers’ or clients happy their complaints were fully resolved or fully compensated for their losses, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) has announced it is to embark on YET ANOTHER round of research into how Scottish solicitors ‘deal with complaints’ and ‘the subject of those complaints’ with the commissioning of a new research project, this time being handled by TNS Research International TNS-BMRB for an as yet undisclosed sum.

The research is to be conduced via telephone interviews between TNS Research and law firms, although there is apparently no obligation on solicitors to participate. Clients & consumers WILL NOT be asked for their input in the SLCC’s latest research.

Diary of Injustice recently reported on another SLCC research project into how the Law Society of Scotland handled conduct complaints, here : Protection Racket : SLCC’s ‘whitewash’ investigation of Law Society of Scotland’s conduct complaint process ends in failure to publish full report. However, the SLCC has so far refused to publish its full findings, limiting published information to a brief mention on it’s website.

Consumers of legal services in Scotland should not expect any improvement in how the SLCC address client complaints after the close of this research, as no improvements to complaints handling at the SLCC have taken place since October 2008 in spite of a number of costly research projects undertaken by the notoriously anti-client legal complaints watchdog whose board members branded financially ruined clients as “frequent flyers” and “chancers”.

An earlier research project commissioned by the SLCC in 2009 & carried out by the University of Manchester’s Law School in to the Law Society of Scotland's Master Insurance Policy revealed clients had committed suicide because of the way they had been treated over claims made against negligent or corrupt solicitors. Diary of Injustice reported on the Master Policy research revelations here : Suicides, illness, broken families and ruined clients reveal true cost of Law Society's Master Policy which 'allows solicitors to sleep at night'

However, the SLCC has steadfastly refused to monitor individual claims to the Master Policy in spite of being asked by members of the public to do so, and no detectable changes have been made to how the SLCC deals with complaints made against negligent solicitors.

The SLCC’s announcement of the new research :

SLCC Research into complaint numbers and practitioners' handling of complaints

As part of its oversight role the SLCC monitors complaints and identifies trends in practice, in relation to how practitioners deal with complaints and the subject of those complaints.  This includes undertaking research.  The latest research the SLCC is carrying out is into complaints made to, and dealt with, by the legal profession in Scotland.

The SLCC has commissioned TNS-BMRB to carry out research into:

the numbers of complaints which solicitors and advocates deal with on an annual basis, including those made directly to the practitioners which are never referred to the SLCC, and complaints which are made through the SLCC's complaints process; and
whether the number and types of transactions carried out by practitioners have any correlation to numbers of complaints received by the SLCC.

During April and May 2012, TNS-BMRB will be contacting Client Relations Managers (CRMs) and advocates for information about their practice (where applicable) and complaints, including:

the size of the firm (e.g. number of partners and Scottish qualified staff practising in Scotland);
scope of practice areas;
the number of transactions, by practice area, the firm dealt with in the last 3 years;
the number of complaints received in the last 3 years, by practice area; and
from whom complaints originate (e.g. from clients or other third parties).

For CRMs, the research will be conducted via a telephone interview, which should take an average of 7 - 10 minutes.  A data sheet will be emailed in advance of the interview to allow CRMs time to retrieve records and to use that information as an aide memoire during the interview.  Advocates will be sent questionnaires to complete and return by post. The SLCC aims to collate information about general complaint handling and expertise employed by those who deal with complaints, and to identify whether there are any unmet training needs.

Practitioners will be asked about:

the processes and procedures in place to deal with and record complaints;
how complaints are disposed of;
the outcome of complaints (e.g. resolved, action taken where complainer remains dissatisfied); and
the level, frequency and type of training (either internally or externally) which they have received regarding complaint handling, how to improve services to prevent/avoid complaints and client care, and how this knowledge and training is disseminated to employees.

The telephone interviews will be carried out during the first few weeks of May 2012.  Advocates should receive their information pack in the first week of May.  Once all data has been obtained from the telephone interviews, the information will be collated, scrutinised and a report prepared by TNS-BMRB.  The SLCC will publish a report on its research in due course. The participation of practitioners is critical to the success of this research and to enabling the SLCC to provide advice, guidance and support in relation to complaints handling in the future which adds value to and reduces costs to the profession. Please refer also to the SLCC Strategy and Corporate Plan  and the SLCC Operational Plan.

There has been no media reaction as yet from the Law Society of Scotland to the SLCC’s latest research plan, however the Scottish Law Agents Society has condemned the SLCC’s complaints research proposal, also raising issues about the SLCC’s compliance with Freedom of Information legislation and pointing out solicitors are not required to hand out complaints information to the SLCC’s researchers. SLAS invited their members to submit their own reflections and suggestions in relation to this development, and issued a statement on their website, reprinted here : SLCC REQUEST FOR FIRMS’ COMPLAINTS INFORMATION

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has written to solicitors’ firms requesting disclosure of information regarding complaints made against firms by clients and, presumably, other interested parties. It is always a matter of great difficulty for solicitors to disclose to third parties information derived from their clients’ files. There is an instinctive reaction to treat clients’ information in the same way that clients’ money is treated and to regard it as not being at the disposal of third parties. There is also the issue as to the privacy of the solicitor’s own business information. When we sought the views of a number of experienced practitioners and advisers as to whether this information should be supplied to SLCC, the immediate response was unanimously negative. The following observations are offered:

1. The notice given by SLCC of this enquiry is insufficient to enable the solicitors’ profession to give collegiate consideration to and to make a considered decision upon the very important issue as to whether or not this sensitive information should be disclosed. 2. The cost of this exercise has to be borne by the solicitors’ profession and no information has been provided as to whether that cost has been estimated and as to whether the exercise will be cost effective. 3. No information is given as to whether or how SLCC has satisfied itself that this exercise falls within its statutory remit and its entitlement to expose solicitors to these costs. 3. The SLCC request does not advise as to whether or not there is any obligation on the part of solicitors to provide this information. 4. Information held by solicitors is private whereas information held by SLCC is subject to Freedom of Information enquiry, disclosure and publication. 5. Law Society officials recommend that firms disclose this information to SLCC. 6. Solicitors do not have any obligation to disclose this information to SLCC. 7. A better option might be for the information to be gathered within the profession where it would remain confidential and beyond the scope of Freedom of Information enquiry and only the conclusions be transmitted to SLCC. This might be achieved through the faculty structure or through the Scottish Law Agents Society. 8. Any research carried out at this stage might helpfully include enquiry into the extent to which the current complaints system accommodates abuse of process by persons who are dissatisfied with proper legal findings 9. The best initial response to this enquiry might be to ask for a further period of time to enable the foregoing issues to be considered and resolved.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sounds like SLAS wont be partitioning so what good is it all?

Just another time wasting exercise by the SLCC I feel..

Anonymous said...

This is all done by arrangement in advance I trust nothing coming out of the SLCC

Anonymous said...

Very revealing that so many respondents who expressed concerns are desperately keen to keep information outside the FOI Act, and withheld from the Public.

If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to worry about.

Anonymous said...

Couldn't they just ask you for all your experience and save us a lot of trouble?

Anonymous said...

But of course Peter the last people Jane Irvine and her friends want to hear from are THE CLIENTS WHO HAVE BEEN RUINED BY CROOKED LAWYERS.

I just thank god you are around to debunk all this bullshit from the legal establishment.

Anonymous said...

Yet more research for what purpose other than distraction?

As you rightly point out the SLCC have never acted on any research results in the past and your example of the 2009 report revealing suicides is indicative of how these people treat the rest of us.

Put simply if they are not going to alter their decisions or how they treat people on the basis of evidence of avoidable deaths the fact is these people and this regulator are not fit or proper to protect the public from rogue solicitors.

Anonymous said...

17:19

Excellent comment

I also agree this latest research is just a ploy to delay matters further.If the SLCC had any intentions of being honest all this would have been done in the first year and anyway how long was Jane Irvine the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman? and now she has to go round asking how solicitors deal with complaints and their subjects?

Give us a break Jane we don't all fall for these announcements of yours.

Anonymous said...

Comment @ 1 May 2012 16:12

No I don't think that would work.

A colleague of mine suffered a near 30 minute rant from Irvine about Cherbi's blog.He came back to the office and called her something I better not write or it will contravene the comments policies.

Suffice to say even we in the profession know Peter's blog is having more of an effect on client relations than the SLCC.

Anonymous said...

SLAS appears to be inciting their members not to reply,a move in itself which shows the SLCC to be a useless body.

As for the 14 million over four years well I might point out the rotten apples in the legal profession and the Council of the Law Society will probably consider this money well spent.Remember,it all comes back from clients anyway who are made to pay through the nose.
Am I making anyone's blood boil yet?

Anonymous said...

They have probably been alerted to some odd goings on by your blog however as usual they are going a daft way about it.Imagine not asking clients for their views and just the solicitor's version of events.
Pretty one sided I'd say.

Anonymous said...

It is unbeleivable that clients are to play no part in any research,Who is in charge , Can they really be serious. This is now a profession in complete melt down and they don't seem to understand why. Like Richard would say "I don't believe it"

Anonymous said...

Precisely just another time wasting exercise.

Why are the SLCC failing to catch the O'Donnell types running around defrauding people as they please?

Its because they don't want to catch them of course.

Anonymous said...

Yes,anyone with half a brain can see this is another set up to waste people's time.

Also good writing in the article and what you have drawn our attention to.

Anonymous said...

Are the SLCC taking the Scottish Govt's independence consultation cues too literally?

I bet the lawyers and SLCC will be spamming this research like there's no tomorrow!

Anonymous said...

Jane let us cut through all the lies and deception, any group such as the SLCC, Law Society, SSDT, etc are driven NOT to prosecute lawyers. I really am fascinated about the mind of the self regulator because comments from Law Society boffins such as “our Master Policy is the ultimate in consumer protection”. These boffins in my opinion really believe this; they are simply out of touch with the reality. The SLCC was set up to protect lawyers. I don’t know if you have ever studies philosophy but John Stuart Mill said “democracy is no guarantee of freedom”. How right he was because fill a government with like minded individuals or your SLCC, SSDT or Law Society and it becomes a protection racket for vested interests. You do not fool us, you are only fooling yourself. Lawyers are professional parasites who rely on their colleagues to keep their crimes hidden. It cannot and will not continue.

Great journalism from the Diary of Injustice Team.

Anonymous said...

Notice item 7 in the SLAS list

7. A better option might be for the information to be gathered within the profession where it would remain confidential and beyond the scope of Freedom of Information enquiry and only the conclusions be transmitted to SLCC. This might be achieved through the faculty structure or through the Scottish Law Agents Society.

Oh my they do fear you Peter and your Freedom of Information investigations.

This is an absolute disgrace of course and should be a warning to anyone dealing with a solicitor - you have no chance against them whatsoever when things go wrong.

Anonymous said...

I was highly amused at the SLCC being described as a Watch Dog for the legal profession.

a) The SLCC is an arm of the Law Society and;

b) A watch-dog is imagined as a bull dog or rottweiler type dog who enforces the protection with force and intimidation.

Therefore, the analogy then of the SLCC as a watch dog for the legal profession would be a lap-dog miniature poodle with a knitted pink jumper on (with its teeth taken out and no bark)

Anonymous said...

This prepared Law Society of Scotland announcement for the SLCC is a sham?

Remember, the SLCC refused to comply with the FOI Commissioner's demand that the results of the last research was published, by claiming that 'it was not in the Public Interest to publish the data'?

Ergo, the micro managed and sabotaged research by lawyers and the Law Society of Scotland was still unsuccessful in concealing the truth and so the SLCC's own Chief Executive responsible for requesting the research tried to conceal the information?

Criminal behaviour?

So, the response of the SLCC is to conduct more research of the very people (Lawyers and the Law Society) who have shown that they are hostile to any of the truth being known by the public?

Why would the Public trust any future research attempted by the Law Society of Scotland (i.e. the SLCC)?

You must think we are buttoned up the back?

Anonymous said...

Who the hell are SLAS anyway?
The right wing arm of the Nazi Party?

This list of demands is utterly outrageous and anyway it should be compulsory for them to make all complaints information public.

Go get em Peter

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Who the hell are SLAS anyway?
The right wing arm of the Nazi Party?

This list of demands is utterly outrageous and anyway it should be compulsory for them to make all complaints information public.

Go get em Peter

2 May 2012 12:44

Yes I agree and if you read back on Peter's exposes of the legal profession you will see SLAS helped create the Legal Defence Union who are directly responsible for the suicides of clients referred to in the SLCC's report on the Master Policy.

Anonymous said...

I like the way your report on this takes the steam out of the lawyers arguments against taking part.Really shows them up so well done although I see you are a bit of an expert at this.

Anonymous said...

Seems a no brainer doing a survey like this on solicitors only to hear many are being told not to hand over the info.How much is it costing and how much more info will it gather than what the SLCC already know about?

As others have said a time wasting exercise.

Anonymous said...

A colleague of mine suffered a near 30 minute rant from Irvine about Cherbi's blog. He came back to the office and called her something I better not write or it will contravene the comments policies.

Suffice to say even we in the profession know Peter's blog is having more of an effect on client relations than the SLCC.
==============================
Yes indeed instead of dealing with crooked lawyers she rants about Peter and his colleagues who are doing a brilliant job. Well Jane if you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen. If you are mature at all ask yourself what would you do in Peter's shoes?

Anonymous said...

Guarantee Fund payments to clients caught in ‘£300K client account looting’ at defunct law firm Ross Harper ‘may take years, or never’ say experts.
================================
Ross Harpers clients have more chance of flying to Mars than getting compensation from these Law Society criminals. People will learn the hard way how evil and cunning the Law Society are.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Ross Harpers clients have more chance of flying to Mars than getting compensation from these Law Society criminals. People will learn the hard way how evil and cunning the Law Society are.
----------------------------------
It was a very large firm so with any luc there will be enough disgruntled/defrauded clients to kick up a stink and write to their (useless) MSPs

Anonymous said...

paper shuffling exercise and no good will come of it - you were right to point out all the defects!

Anonymous said...

The Law Society of Scotland have too much power.

So much so that they consider themselves to be 'above the law'?

The sooner the Office Bearers are arrested the better?

Anonymous said...

The facts are that the guaranteed fund has never paid out large sums of compensation, but has anyone considered that it doesn't pay out because its plundered on a regular basis by the key holders??? Who knows what the balance is and if you believe that the figure grows through out the years without being severely skimmed you'll believe anything.

Anonymous said...

If the SLCC are not protecting the clients of crooked Scottish lawyers then surely they are committing Fraud and the Office Bearers should be arrested?