Legal Ombudsman must improve pace

The Legal Ombudsman Service (LeO) has made some progress in reducing case backlogs and shortening customer journey times. However, the Law Society of England and Wales continues to express concerns about the speed of progress and effectiveness of the reforms. In a response to the Office for Legal Complaints’ (OLC) draft business plan and budget consultation for 2025-2026, the Law Society highlighted issues that still need addressing, such as high staff sickness levels and LeO’s decision to diversify into new areas before fully establishing its core function of resolving complaints swiftly and efficiently.

Richard Atkinson, the president of the Law Society, pointed out that the backlog of cases waiting to be reviewed and the average time customers spend navigating the complaint process remain unacceptably high. He stressed the urgency of resolving these issues before any other strategic diversification can be considered.

Atkinson said: “We acknowledge that the Legal Ombudsman Service is taking steps to address its high sickness levels, however, we also encourage the Ombudsman to consider how investigator productivity may be enhanced and how effectively its current resources are deployed as part of the solution.”

He further stated that the Law Society does not support the notion that simply increasing resources would improve outcomes. Past years have demonstrated that such investments did not yield the expected results. Therefore, the Law Society does not support the full budget request presented by the OLC.

Atkinson added: “Once the LeO’s core operations are firmly and consistently under control, then it may be appropriate for greater diversification of its learning and insight work.”

Budget Considerations and Case Fees

The Law Society also expressed concerns about the financial implications of the proposed inflationary rise in the LeO’s case fee. While some increase in fees may be necessary, they strongly opposed the proposed doubling of the fee to £800. The Law Society stated that any adjustments to the case fee should be subject to a more specific and consultative approach, allowing for meaningful discussions about the quantum and application of these changes.

The proposed fee increase remains a point of contention, with concerns about affordability for consumers and legal service providers. The Law Society is open to further dialogue about how the fees are structured, suggesting that a collaborative approach is essential.

AI and Decision Summaries

Another point of contention is the LeO’s proposal to publish summaries of decisions created through a mix of artificial intelligence (AI) and human input. The Law Society raised concerns about the costs and risks associated with such a project. They questioned the value of publishing summaries or full decisions, arguing that there is no compelling evidence to show that consumers require or benefit from this information when choosing a legal service provider.

Typically, factors influencing the selection of legal services include location, availability, and cost rather than decision summaries. The Law Society cautioned that the time and labour-intensive nature of generating these summaries could divert resources from the core responsibilities of resolving complaints effectively.

Moving Forward

The Law Society’s feedback underscores the importance of prioritising the core functions of the Legal Ombudsman Service before considering any new initiatives. The emphasis should remain on tackling the backlog of cases, enhancing productivity, and deploying resources in a more effective manner. Only after these foundational operations are firmly established and functioning smoothly should the LeO explore expanding its scope to other areas.

The call for a more consultative approach regarding fee adjustments and the use of AI-generated decision summaries indicates the need for transparency and collaboration. The Law Society remains committed to working with the OLC and other stakeholders to refine these proposals in a way that serves consumers and the legal profession equitably.

In summary, the Law Society continues to push the Legal Ombudsman Service to focus on improving efficiency, maintaining core operations, and addressing backlogs before diversifying into new areas, while also being cautious about financial investments and technological initiatives.

The Office for Legal Complaints (OLC) includes a diverse leadership team with key committees to ensure strategic planning, financial oversight, and adherence to regulatory objectives. 

Pictured Members include:

• Elisabeth Davies, Chair
• Harindra Punchihewa, Board member (lay) & Chair of the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC)
• Alison Sansome, Board member (lay)
• Martin Spencer, Board member (lay)
• Patricia Tueje, Board Member (non-lay)
• Rachel Cerfontyne, Board Member (lay)
• Georgina Philippou, Board Member (lay)
• Elaine Banton, Board Member (non-lay)

The Board and committees focus on strategy, risk management, governance, and consumer protection in line with the Legal Services Act.

Copyright & permissions