The Scottish Government

This item was published during the term of a previous administration that ended in April 2007

Listen

Legal Services Ombudsman report

08/07/2003

Complex and lengthy bureaucracy in the complaints system used by the Law Society of Scotland is highlighted as a continuing worrying concern by the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman (SLSO) in her annual report for 2003-2003 published today.

The report to Scottish Ministers by Ombudsman Linda Costelloe Baker notes that once again it has been a very busy year for her office with complaints to the Law Society, to the Faculty of Advocates and to the Ombudsman herself continuing to rise.

Key findings are:

• Complaints to the Ombudsman have risen by 42% to 245 in the past year
• The Law Society is acting unreasonably in refusing to investigate complaints
• The Law Society's investigation into a complaint had not been fair and thorough in half of the 90 cases examined by the Ombudsman
• The Faculty of Advocates' investigation had been fair and thorough in two thirds of the 13 cases examined

Mrs Costelloe Baker said:

"Once again, my annual report is full of case studies, short stories about people who have been caught up in the way the Law Society of Scotland and Faculty of Advocates handle complaints about their members.

"One person wrote to me saying: 'This procedure has taken 23 months from beginning to end to resolve a relatively uncomplex complaint which was virtually uncontested by my ex solicitor. I feel that the Law Society failed to take on board all that I wrote in over 50 pieces of correspondence. Indeed the Law Society has generated more confusion over the past two years than I would have thought possible.'

"I am not worried about the rise in complaints - other than the strain on my office - because I think it's a sign of an accessible complaints system, rather than a worsening legal profession.

"Given the millions of legal transactions undertaken each year, it is perhaps surprising that in 2002 only 2,500 people complained to the Law Society and only 35 to the Faculty of Advocates.

"What does worry me is that so few of the complaints made to the Law Society find their way to the end of a complaints process which continues to be complex, lengthy and bureaucratic.

"874 people had the door closed in their face because the Law Society refused to investigate their complaints. 100 of them wrote to me and I found that the Law Society is still rejecting far too many complaints that it should be investigating. 729 people withdrew or abandoned their complaint before a final decision was made.

"The Law Society's current complaints system fails both the ordinary person and the solicitor. I found that the Law Society had failed to investigate a complaint fairly or thoroughly in half of the 90 cases I examined. The new process, announced by the Law Society last Friday, is a significant move in the right direction.

"It has been a better year for the Faculty of Advocates which has, for the first time, a complaints handling process that includes non lawyer involvement. There have also been long-awaited improvements in basic administrative efficiency.

"I welcome the report by Parliament's Justice 1 Committee on legal services complaint handling. There is now the prospect of improving the legislation that underpins the way complaints about solicitors and advocates are handled. Real access to justice cannot happen unless ordinary people get a fair deal from lawyers, and a fair and open minded deal from the Law Society or Faculty of Advocates if they make a complaint."

The Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman is appointed by Scottish Ministers under Section 34(1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.

The Ombudsman looks into complaints about the way a professional body (The Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates or the Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board) has handled a complaint against a practitioner.

The Ombudsman's job is to decide if the professional body has given each complaint proper attention, if it has taken appropriate action on the basis of a fair and thorough examination of all the evidence, and if it has acted reasonably, impartially and effectively.