Bar Council Defends Its Record On Complaints Handling
21 June 2007
In a hard-hitting briefing sent to key MPs this week, the Bar Council has defended its record on complaints handling. As the Legal Services Bill moves through Committee Stage, the Government is proposing a ‘one size fits all’ approach to complaints handling, reversing amendments introduced in the House of Lords. But the vast majority of complaints are against solicitors – and the overwhelming majority of criticisms about complaints handling are directed against the Law Society rather than the Bar’s independent regulator, the Bar Standards Board (BSB), which has consistently provided an efficient and effective service, according to the independent Legal Services Ombudsman.
The Bar Council has fought to preserve a light touch regulatory system which is cost effective, and maintains the existing excellent service which benefits the consumer. The Government proposes that the prospective power to delegate complaints handling to the Bar Standards Board, introduced in the House of Lords, is removed from the Office for Legal Complaints (OLC). This proposal comes despite this week’s report from the independent Legal Services Ombudsman, which commends the BSB’s strong performance in complaints handling.
Commenting on the Government’s proposals, the Chairman of the Bar, Geoffrey Vos QC, said:
‘The performance of the Bar’s independent regulator, the BSB, has been commended by the LSO for its strong performance in handling the vast majority of complaints referred to her by consumers. Against this excellent record, we are disappointed that the Government is seeking to remove the BSB’s ability to award redress to consumers. They will be worse off.
He added:
What is now clear is that 80-90% of the staff of the Law Society’s Legal Complaints Service will be transferring to the Office for Legal Complaints. So the OLC will simply become a re-badged LCS. Consumers are right to be concerned.
The Bar Council is campaigning for delegation of powers only when the Legal Services Board is content, and when appropriate safeguards, already in the Bill, are applied. We hope that Parliamentarians will recognise the strength of our case, which will satisfy the interests of the public and of consumers.’
