Skip to Navigation | Skip to Help

Annual Reports

Summary of the Annual Report 2000–2001

The Ombudsman

Answers to the Frequently Asked Questions about the Ombudsman: the laws which govern the Ombudsman’s role and remit; what the Ombudsman does; what is an Opinion, how is it prepared, what happens to it; what can the Ombudsman do, what can the Ombudsman not do, what is the connection between the Ombudsman and the Scottish Executive and Ministers?

The Ombudsman’s Office

From April 2000 to March 2001, the Ombudsman’s office received 104 complaints which would result in a formal Ombudsman’s Opinion. The volume of new complaints fluctuates from year to year, and there is no definite trend. Over the past 5 years, there has been an average of 120 new complaints each year.

From April 2000 to March 2001, my predecessor and I completed 164 Opinions.

In recent years a long backlog of complaints had built up: in January 2000 most complainants had to wait 65 weeks for an Opinion to be prepared. Through hard work and determination the backlog has been removed completely: it now takes from 3 to 13 weeks to complete an Opinion, depending on the complexity of the case.

We aim to make the Ombudsman, Ombudsman’s staff, and office, accessible to complainants.

We are developing best practice criteria for complaint handling so that the assessment of complaint handling by the professional bodies is both rigorous and structured.

I have said that information that the professional bodies are required to provide to the Ombudsman should not be classed as confidential unless there are exceptional circumstances.

I have taken a number of steps to improve the perception of independence and separation from the professional bodies.

The Ombudsman’s Powers

Following a review of practice and policy, recommendations to the professional bodies are tied more closely to the Ombudsman’s powers, as set out in the 1997 Act. A series of case studies illustrate these powers in action.

Recommendations to Scottish Ministers

The maximum level of compensation for inconvenience that the Ombudsman can recommend the professional bodies pay to a complainant was set at £1,000 in 1997. I invite Scottish Ministers to take steps to raise the compensation ceiling in line with inflation since 1997.

I invite Scottish Ministers to take time to consult fully and widely on the regulation of the legal professions, in order to determine whether a completely fresh legislative framework is now needed.

General Directions to the Ombudsman

The General Directions have remained unchanged since 1993. The direction that a complaint to the Ombudsman must be made within 6 months of the decision of the professional body may benefit from review. It may be appropriate to reduce the period to 3 months and I invite comments before I consider whether to make a formal recommendation.

The Law Society of Scotland

The Law Society of Scotland does not look into all complaints about solicitors. It investigates allegations that a solicitor may have breached certain rules of conduct and service. There is a significant gap between the expectations of members of the public who want to make a complaint, and what the Law Society can and does deliver.

The best estimate is that between 10% and 15% of people whose complaint about a solicitor has been investigated by the Law Society, then complain to the Ombudsman about the way the investigation was handled.

The Law Society’s investigation into a complaint was found to be fair and reasonable in 49% of the cases referred to the Ombudsman.

From April 2000 to March 2001, the Ombudsman recommended that the Law Society pay £11,475 in compensation to complainants for the unnecessary inconvenience caused by badly managed investigations. Compensation recommendations, made in 15% of cases, have usually been linked to periods of avoidable delay in the Law Society’s lengthy and complex investigation process. The Law Society refused to accept recommendations for compensation totalling £1,750.

In 35% of the cases referred to the Ombudsman after a full Law Society investigation, the Ombudsman concluded that the Law Society had not investigated the complaint adequately or fairly. The Law Society accepted almost all of the Ombudsman’s recommendations to re-open its investigations.

In 28% of the cases referred to the Ombudsman because the Law Society had refused to look into a complaint about a solicitor, the Ombudsman concluded that the Law Society had failed to recognise a complaint which it is required by law to investigate.

It accepted all but one of the Ombudsman’s recommendations to start up an investigation. After some months, the Law Society eventually accepted the single recommendation it had initially refused to accept.

I recommend that the Law Society:

The Faculty of Advocates

Two complaints which were within the Ombudsman’s remit to investigate, were received about the way the Faculty of Advocates had dealt with a complaint about an advocate. In both, the Faculty was found to have looked into the complaint fairly and thoroughly.

There has been slow progress in implementing agreed changes to the way the Faculty deals with complaints and increasing lay (not an advocate) involvement.

I recommend that the Faculty of Advocates prepares an Information Sheet to explain the various stages in the way it deals with complaints, and that this should be sent to all complainants.

The Scottish Conveyancing & Executry Services Board

One complaint was received on completion of an investigation by the Board into a complaint about a Qualified Conveyancer. The complaint was not proceeded with after an explanation that the Ombudsman could not look into the complaint about the practitioner and could not overturn the Board’s decision.

The Board’s complaint handling procedures have a modern feel, and include a good level of involvement by people who are not lawyers.

Regulation and Self-regulation

For self-regulation to be effective, consumers have to be confident that it works well and fairly. The legal services professions must meet current consumer expectations to win consumer confidence. I recognise the debate over whether the legal professions should be treated differently, but believe that consumers see legal services as little different from any other service, and their expectations are driven by their experiences in a commercial world where responding well to customers is the key to staying in business.

The way the legal services professional bodies handle complaints is only a small component of self-regulation but complaint handling is the public face of regulation and acts as a measure of effectiveness.

The perception is that the complaint systems offer little or nothing that is wholly independent of lawyers and legal culture. Consumers can feel at a disadvantage.

My view is that the sharpest focus should be on access to justice: the provision of high quality, accessible, affordable, well regulated legal advice and assistance is a means to that end. Good complaint handling should contribute to ensuring that legal services are of high quality, but can only do that if it is part of an integrated system of quality management.

The Wider World

We have talked with complaint handlers in the commercial and professional world in order to assess complaint handling by the legal services professional bodies against current best practice.

We hosted the first ever seminar for Scottish Ombudsmen and their staff. We looked at best practice in dealing with complaints about racism and learnt about the Disability Rights Commission.

I have met with solicitors, advocates, the Scottish Legal Aid Board and a consumer pressure group to improve my understanding of the provision of legal services, the context of complaints and of dissatisfaction with the way complaints are handled.

Linda M Costelloe Baker
Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman
July 2001

Source: http://www.slso.org.uk/2000summary.shtml