495 / 736
profession is to be improved, a solution to the problem
must be found."
If their recommendations regarding the preliminary
investigation of complaints
(infra) were implemented
the
committee believe most complainants would be
satisfied;
to deal with cases where complainants were
still seriously dissatisfied, even after having had their
complaints
investigated
by
the
Bar
Council
or
by the Law Society, there would have to be a review
body consisting of lawyers and laymen.
THE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE FOR
COMPLAINTS
The Garrett Justice committee propose a system of
preliminary investigation of complaints at local level,
operated by local law societies
(either individually or
in groups) with the participation of laymen.
Each
local law society or grouped societies would
appoint and maintain (i) a small standing committee
who would be
responsible
for
the conduct of
the
scheme, and (ii)
three panels :
panel A to consist of
lawyers
(not necessarily
in practice)
to
investigate
complaints against members of the profession; panel B
consisting of practising solicitors to act in civil pro
ceedings against other members of the profession; panel
C from whose members ad hoc complaints committees
would be appointed. Each complaints committee would
consist of a lay chairman and two lawyers (one a barris
ter where the complaint involved a barrister). On receipt
of a complaint, the secretary of the standing committee
would
refer
it
to
a member of panel A
("the
investigator") to classify it as (a) capable of being dis-
••(•'
.!••
i-'formal
intervention and explanation;
(b)
apparently involving an allegation likely to lead to a
civil claim for damages;
(c)
a prima facie case of
professional misconduct; or (d) a case too difficult for
local treatment.
For a complaint
in category
(a)
the
investigator,
having first referred it to the solicitor concerned, to
ascertain
any
necessary
further
facts, would
then
endeavour
to
satisfy
the
complainant
either
bv
expounding
the
true position or by persuading
the
solicitor to take some necessarv action :
"the role of
the
investigator should emphatically not be
to pass
'udgment." If
the complainant remained dissatisfied,
he would be informed that he could have his complaint
referred either
to a complaints committee or
to
the
Law Society. The primary
role of
the complaints
committee would be that of conciliator assisted by an
unbiased
summary
of
the
case
prepared
bv
the
investigator. No complaint should be rejected without
a full explanation of the reasons.
Where a complaint fell within category
(b)
the
investigator would refer the complainant to
the next
available member in rotation of oanel B and. if the
complainant agreed, the member of panel B would then
be obliged
to accept instructions on a normal pro
fessional basis.
On a complaint within category (c)
the investigator
would prepare an unbiased summary of the case and
pass it. with the complaint and any other paper, to the
Law Society.
Where a comnlaint fell within category (d) the com
plainant would be informed that he might refer the
complaint to the Law Society, either direct or through
the
standing
committee
who would
provide
such
comments of their own as they thought appropriate.
For the purposes of complaints
involving members
of
the Bar,
the standing committee would maintain
contact with the Bar Council and
local Bar circuits
so as to be able to call upon the assistance of a barrister
to sit on a complaints committee in such cases.
On
complaints dealt with by
the Bar Council
or
by
the
Law
Society,
the
committee
recom
mend
(a)
a greater willingness by
those bodies
to
interview complainants personally so
that the precise
nature of the complaint may be properly understood;
'hi that
n
complainant should be kept fully informed
at all stages of the action taken on his complaint, and
(c) that a full explanation capable of being understood
without further legal advice must always be given when
any complaints rejected.
The Bar Society and the Law Society should jointly
make arrangements for establishing a review body to
hear complainants who remain dissatisfied after their
complaint have been dealt with by either of
those
bodies. A complainant in such circumstances will,
in
effect,
be
appealing
from
a
tribunal
consisting
exclusively of
lawyers,
so
the
review body
should
include a lay element.
Generally, the committee emphasise
"the apparent
possibility of an allegation of negligence should not be
treated
either
by
the
Bar
Council
or
by
the
Law
Society
as
a
reason
for
terminating
or
suspending enquiries into a comDlant." They believe
that "there
is no compelling reason" for the present
contrary practice in such cases; the complainant should
of course, be told of his common law riehts '-> all cases,
"but in a manner which .
.
. has regard to the realities
of
his
position
rather
than
the mere
theoretical
possibilities."
COMPLAINTS
A Statement by
the
English Law Society
"The Council of The Law Society have reviewed the
present system
for dealing with
complaints against
solicitors. Their review has included the role of the
Disciplinary Committee. They recognise
that because
the work which solicitors have to do affects so many
people in their everyday lives, it is imperative that a
cocmplaint that a solicitor has fallen short of the pro
fession's hisrh standards of conduct must be dealt with
in a manner which is not only fair, but also
is seen
to be so.
Every vear matters are brounrht
to
the Society's
attention for investigation man 1' of which prove to be
unfounded or to be outside he Society's Jurisdiction.
The Society on behalf of
the profession pnd
in
the
interests of the public, devote a considerable amount
of time and number of staff and a high proportion of
the
revenue
received
from
the
profession
to
this
investigation. The Council believe that the investigation
is carried out well and efficiently; they recognise that
this is probably inevitable in this tvpe of situation. The
Council believe
that despite
the high and increasing
cost of this important part of their work, they must do
all in their power to maintain and. where necessary, im
prove the efficiency of the department responsible.
The Disciplinary Committee was created over 50 years
ago by Parliament which provided for its members to
41