Let us bring you up to date with the latest in the world of risk and compliance.
Have we covered everything? Get in touch, we would love to hear your feedback, good or bad!
Are we innovative?
This week Jon went to the Legal Futures Innovation conference. He got all excited by the opportunities that emerging technologies are bringing to the profession, but was underwhelmed by the examples of innovation on display. What does it mean to be innovative?
Read the blog post here
Client care letters are ‘failing consumers’, apparently
This month the Legal Services Consumer Panel published details of their research into client care letters. The conclusion was that they ‘often did little to challenge negative preconceptions of legal services communications as complex and difficult to read’. The research targeted people who had recently taken legal advice and comments included ‘they’re trying to make you feel thick’, ‘it’s all about money’ and ‘surely it’s too early to tell me about how to complain?’.
Why is it important?
It is incredibly frustrating that there is no recognition from the Panel that there is a lot of information that solicitors have to include in the client care letter. Until we have some further guidance from the regulators (is that asking too much?), we question the value of this survey – it tells us what we already know, namely that practitioners are already trying to balance the huge regulatory information requirements with the need to present that information in a client-friendly way. Not an easy task!
We are considering drafting our own ‘plain language’ template – let us know if that would be useful to you.
Read more about the research here (we recommend concentrating on your breathing and counting to ten to avoid screaming obscenities in the middle of the office).
Identity crisis at Chancery Lane
The Law Society has issued a survey which closes on Friday the 11th November to look at the value they deliver to members. In our view, the survey gives the impression of an identity crisis at the Law Society, with questions focused on the Society’s very role in representing and promoting the profession.
Why is it important?
There has been huge disquiet in the profession regarding regulatory reform, removal of legal aid, litigation cost reform and squandered IT projects. We clearly need a representative body that’s fit for purpose and is willing to listen to the profession and stand up to the state and industry lobbyists where appropriate. If it is not prepared to do that, its future relevance will have to be questioned. Don’t forget – if the SRA becomes fully independent of the Law Society (which looks increasingly likely) then membership is likely to become voluntary. Would you pay a third of your practising fees to remain a member?
Old signatures will not do
A personal injury solicitor has been fined £7000 for using old signatures on revised particulars of claim. Roger Paul Jackson was admitted to the roll in 1983 and when the case changed from 3 claimants to 2, he used tipp-ex to remove the first claimant and used the same original signatures. The SDT found that ‘This was a deliberate and calculated act and he ought to have known this was a material breach of his obligations’
Why is it important?
It might be something that many are tempted to do under pressure but this case demonstrates again that integrity and maintaining the reputation of the profession will always be paramount considerations of the SDT.
Legal Ombudsman survey
The Legal Ombudsman has issued a survey into how its Scheme Rules can be improved. They state that they are committed to exploring further revisions including considerations of their case fee structure, which may double – or halve – depending on the case.
Why is it important?
This is your opportunity to say what is working and what is not within the current scheme. Is the current £400 fee reasonable? What about the publishing of decisions? Do be polite!