The sting in the tail

A steady stream of job applications pops through the letter box most weeks from budding trainee solicitors. There is something rather refreshing, albeit a little naïve, in some of the covering letters in that they express a wish to help others, make a difference, fight for justice and generally be on the side of the angels. They want to make new law, fight for human rights and be part of an organisation that cares. Sadly they do not realise that a large part of any solicitor's job is not terribly exciting or courageous '“ it is just plain boring. It involves repetitive tasks, form filling and, worst of all, dealing with regulation.

Take my last couple of months. In December I had my housing law department peer review by the Legal Services Commission. This is an exercise where the LSC chooses 20 files which have been closed by the firm, and an independent solicitor trawls through the files and compiles a report. As the files were closed they have to be retrieved from storage '“ at considerable cost to us '“ and time has to be spent on ensuring the files are in good order and ready to be peer reviewed. The report is returned with the files, and comments on how things could have been done or not done. If I am unhappy with the comments there is an appeal process!

All of this is time consuming, expensive'¦ and certainly not exciting.

The trawlers come in

Early in the new year I heard that I was going to have an LSC 'full audit', which meant that members of the LSC would come into our offices, goes through a selection of old files, and take a selection of new ones. They would also consider all our office procedures; check our training records, complaints records, referral processes, customer satisfaction questionnaires, and generally giving the firm a complete MOT.

The process has been compared to an OFSTED inspection, and the powers of those carrying out the inspection are really quite extensive in that they can effectively terminate your right to do publicly funded work.

Again, one has to make sure that all the files requested are delivered, that office procedures are updated and that all the documentation required is available on time for the date of inspection. This takes a considerable amount of time and, for small firms like mine where we cannot afford an officer manager, the responsibility falls squarely upon my shoulders.

Unbillable hours, unpaid work

Imagine my surprise when, shortly after hearing about the full audit from the LSC, I hear that we are also going to have a 'costs compliance audit', which involves the LSC checking (again on a selection of closed files) that we have been properly vetting the clients and have been making sure that they were effectively eligible for public funding. This is quite a serious audit as, if we fail, the LSC can claw back monies and again technically take away our contract to provide publicly funded work. They suggest that we look at all the files provided and make sure that they are clean as a whistle '“ more costs, more time. It is unbillable, and is simply administrative work for which we will never be paid.

Having gone through the peer review, full audit and costs compliance audit, I then heard that I was 'to be visited' by the Solicitors Regulation Authority who wanted to check up on my investment business. As a lawyer doing a very large volume of publicly funded work and not a lot else, I am never too sure what 'investment business' is. It sounds a little glamorous and rather like something out of which you can actually make some money, but as I am not doing any I am not sure.

Nevertheless, again, the gentleman from the SRA suggested that I choose a selection of files along with huge amounts of accounting material for his inspection. This means files must again be retrieved, sorted, and the accounts department ready to churn out all the information that will no doubt be requested. My guess is that I probably do some investment business as it is likely that during the course of the year I have issued one or two defective title insurance policies in relation to conveyancing transactions for which I received no commission and, as a result, I have now to endure an audit.

A hanging offence?

Therefore, January was not really a good month. It ended rather bizarrely with Solicitors Complaints contacting me about a case they had closed months previously '“ fully upholding the actions I had taken in relation to a case. Apparently the complaining client had gone to the Legal Services Ombudsman and complained about the way the Legal Complaints Service had dealt with her complaint, leading to the Legal Complaints Service re-opening the complaint. The complaint related to the fact that I had not returned a couple of calls to a client while we were awaiting the outcome of her public funding application and, even more bizarrely, to the fact that I had not told the client that I was doing some work pro bono rather than under the auspices of a Public Funding Certificate. The Legal Services Ombudsman felt that Legal Complaints had been too soft on the firm and I should indeed be punished! Quite what that punishment will be I have yet to find out. I will keep you informed. If it is a hanging offence no doubt you will see an end to these articles.

So to all the budding trainees out there wanting to do their bit for justice, do remember there is a sting in the tail '“ and that sting is regulation. Oddly enough, nobody regulates dog owners and anyone can buy a dog without a licence these days. Speaking for myself I look after my dog just as carefully as my firm and that is because I care '“ not because I am regulated.