Michael Napier

00 24 ???? The viewsQ: Will the Legal Ombudsman‘list of shame’ force lawyers toraise standards of customerservice and focus efforts toeffectively deal with complaintsin-house?When you stand in anA: airport queue at the Ryanairgate and see someone go tothe front for priority and thenreturn shamefaced, they have justcompleted the dreaded “Walkof Shame”, to the amusementand gratification of all thosenon priority customers patientlywaiting their turn. As lawyers we now have our ownequivalent in the “Hall of Shame” published by the LegalOmbudsman (LeO).A quick review of the Conveyancing stats showthere are 124 Firms on the list with a combined 137decisions. From the 124 firms there are only four firmswith two or more entries. The overwhelming majorityof firms are therefore showing one decision only. Againmy calculations suggest out of the 124 firms there areone or more remedies registered against some 49of those firms. That means again the majority of theconveyancing firms in the list had no finding of anysanction.According to the FAQ’s this means either that theLeO was satisfied with the service the lawyer or firmprovided, or that the ombudsman’s decision wasequivalent to what the lawyer or firm had alreadyoffered to do when it dealt with the complaint. Where adecision has been made there are details of the range ofthe compensation (but not the actual amount) or otherremedy.I know that statistics are there for interpretation. Itseems to me however that what is there is unlikely tobe a deciding factor in the choice process of a firm oflawyers by a client. That is not to say I view the processas not having any benefit. I do see how firms will wishnot to be added to the list (their overriding wish willremain however not to be referred to LeO in the firstplace). I also see that this list could easily grow inimportance. (I am not aware if searching for a lawyerwould throw up any list reference in Google yet or inthe future).Will it focus firms to hone their in house complaintsservice ? – I think the answer is that this is one moreweapon in the armory to encourage lawyers to dealeffectively with complaints and for all of us that ofcourse is a good thing.By Eddie Goldsmith, Partner, Goldsmith Williams & Chairof the Conveyancing Association.Q: Will the Legal Ombudsman‘list of shame’ force lawyers toraise standards of customerservice and focus efforts toeffectively deal with complaintsin-house?I’m looking at this questionA: solely from the technologypoint of view and how it canimpact on the legal practiceareas attracting the highestnumbers of complaint: residentialconveyancing, personal injury andwill & probate work.There are two core issueshere where technology can assist: (1) Practice & ClientRelationship Management in other words the customermanagement side of the relationship with the clientand (2) Case & Matter Management, which looks at theprocess management side of the relationship.With regards to the first technology, it doesn’t matterwhether it is an old green-screen Unix accounts systemor the latest CRM software, somewhere within your firmyou have the ability to contact clients and prospectsabout your terms and conditions, fee structures etc. Treatyour clients with respect and give them the facts: explainabout all the extra costs that can arise and unforeseendelays. Then, if something does go wrong, they are fullyin the picture and are not taken by surprise.There is a well-known marketing concept calledsuper-pleasing – being prepared to do just that little bitextra in the client relationship, including being proactivewhen something goes wrong. Super-pleasing andclient relationship management are both techniques wecan expect alternative legal service providers to havein their portfolio. Traditional law firms also have thetools to do this. You just need to look at matters froma customer satisfaction point of view rather than a feemaximizing perspective.As for case management! Per-lease! This technologyhas been around since the late 1970s so there isabsolutely no excuse for any forward-thinking law firmnot to be using it!A good case management system is simultaneouslya performance standards compliance and riskmanagement system. If you set up the system to ensurethat deadlines are not missed, clients are kept up-todatewith progress, steps are not inadvertently omittedin a process, then you are also minimising the risk of anyof those things ever happening by ensuring your staffcomply with your best practice standards.So, to go back to the original question: law firmsalready have at their disposal the software applicationsto prevent many complaints from ever arising andfor adequately responding to them. As with manyaspects of modern legal business processes, it is not atechnology problem but a cultural issue.Charles Christian is a barrister who has been writingabout legal technology for over 30 years.ML // November 2012