The Gazette 1993

GAZETTE

GEM N

JUNE 1993

. .

tnx

law _ ^ m t V c a s i ^ w v e r s

solicitors meet to oppose tax

. j-

.-solicitors meet to oppose tax —

w - .

l)í

L a W

SoClPtV

Legal I

^«JCJfJLy ne extended

- t o consider

^ F i n a n c e Act

^ S o c ^

# **

S o c , e t

t e s t

' o v e r b a t t e r e d

w i v e s c r i s i s

- S S t ó í S ^ ^

raps courts funding

f ^ t y

,}f

ye.

Solicitors face

J o w W

Aid for

C»

**—»

victims u -

Solicitors step up fight to become judges

"The Society rarely . . . lets anything pass"

do the bidding of the profession

simply at the asking. It is to be

expected - and, I hope, accepted in

the profession - that the interests of

the profession will not always

coincide with what is perceived as

being in the public interest and, as a

profession, we must try to come to

grips with this.

There is little doubt that much needs

to be done to enhance the public

image of the profession and also the

credibility of the Society in the eyes

of the public. However, the

profession must realise that the

Society cannot be unmindful of the

fact that there is evidence to suggest

that not all solicitors give an

adequate service to their clients

(1,500 complaints a year is

not

negligible total) and there is some

public dissatisfaction with the

remedies that, up to now, have been

available to people who have been

dissatisfied. Sections 8 and 9 of the

Solicitors Bill, giving the Law

Society new powers to deal with

shoddy work and overcharging,

would hardly have been necessary if

everybody had been satisfied with

the way in which complaints had

been handled up to now. Nor is the

appointment of a Legal Ombudsman

the product of the mind of some

unreasonable Minister who sees it as

his task to put down the profession.

We can, as a profession, do more to

bring home to the public that we are

an honourable profession. However,

shouting this from the rooftops will

not, in itself, be enough; the

profession needs to

demonstrate

clearly to the public that it does care

about the quality of the service that

it is offering and that it is concerned

with complaints about the service.

(Should the Society be considering,

in this context, introducing a rule

similar to rule 15 in England under

which it would be mandatory for

every law firm to have formal

complaints procedures?) Concerns of

this kind have already motivated the

Council recently to move to

announce the appointment of Lay

Observers to its Registrar's

Committee. The introduction of

transparency and accountability in

the complaints procedures of the

Society will do much, in my view, to

enhance public confidence in

the Society and also in the

profession.

We are, of course, an honourable

profession. The vast majority of our

members are public-spirited persons

who give a good service to their

clients and give good value for

money. However, as in every

profession, a minority fail to live up

to the standards expected of them.

The problem with the profession is,

however, that at the moment, rightly

or wrongly, there is a public

perception that we are self-interested

and do not care sufficiently about

our clients. The public relations

policy of the Society is directed at

demonstrating that this perception is

unfounded. The Society is working

actively to improve management in

legal firms, to promote quality in the

delivery of legal services and to

bring home to the public that the

profession offers protection to its

clients through the Compensation

Fund and redress, by having an

effective an efficient complaints

procedure when things go wrong.

However, we must strive harder to

get this message across to the public.

Until we do, it is unlikely, in my

view, that the public's view of the

profession will improve or that the

image of the Society itself will alter

greatly. That is why many of the

provisions of the Solicitors Bill will

be a help. It was to this end that the

Council of the Society, in the recent

past, decided that, from now on, all

those who default in a serious way

will be subject to the full glare of

publicity. This is, undoubtedly, a

painful experience for the profession.

We do not necessarily want to see

cases of this kind in the newspapers

but we must get the message across

that those who betray the trust

reposed in them will be dealt with

severely. We must also convince the

public that we are not a little club

protecting our own. The thrust and

direction of our public relations

policy is to get this message across

but, of course, the message

sometimes falls on a sceptical public.

I believe we are succeeding and I

believe that, in due course, and

especially when we get the new

powers we so badly need in the

Solicitors Bill to deal more

effectively with complaints, there will

be a substantial improvement.

The profession itself must be patient

and give the new policies a chance to

work. We should not see enemies

laying siege from every corner. The

profession has its critics, amongst

politicians and in the media, and

sometimes criticism is unfair and

unbalanced. Recently, a former

Government Minister spoke

disparagingly of the profession on a

major television programme in a way

which was quite unbalanced. That

criticism was responded to by the

Society but, alas, the media in

general did not pick up the response.

132