Clients can make complaints about solicitors or barristers directly to the legal professional, their regulatory body, or independent complaints organizations. These complaints bodies have powers to investigate complaints, order compensation, and discipline legal professionals through penalties like fines, suspensions or disbarment. However, the previous system was criticized for lack of independence and delays. The Legal Services Act of 2007 established a new independent oversight board and complaints office to improve the complaints process.

1. Describe the ways in which a client can make a complaint about their solicitor or barrister or otherwise claim compensation. [18] <br />OUT OF COURT <br />Clients can as a first point of call complain directly to the solicitor’s office. It is likely that the office manager will deal with such a complaint and each firm will have a complaints policy. Alternatively a client may complain to the Legal Complaints Service (formerly Consumer Complaints Board) which has the power in successful and legitimate complaints to reduce a solicitor's bill and order a solicitor to pay compensation to a client. It is the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner that investigates the handling of complaints and sets targets in an attempt to avoid delays. Furthermore, the Solicitors Regulatory Authority can reprimand a solicitor or refer them to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. This tribunal has the power to strike the solicitor from the roll, suspend them, reprimand them, fine them or ban them from working as a solicitor. <br />For complaints against barristers, clients can complain via the solicitor who gave the barristers the brief, or to the Head of Chambers. Alternatively, if this does not satisfy the client it can be taken to the Bar Standards Board which is supervised by the Complaints Commissioner and can order a barrister to apologise, repay fees and compensate a client. If the commissioner thinks there is a case to answer then the complaint is handed on to the complaints committee. They can either dismiss a complaint or forward it to other disciplinary panels. For example, the adjudication panel that considers and can insist on an apology, waive fees or order the payment of compensation, or the disciplinary tribunal which deals with serious complaints and can order a fine, suspend or disbar the barrister. The Senate of the Inns of Court checks that a barrister meets the standards set out in the Code of Conduct and can refer a barrister to the complaints committee if they feel that the code has been broken. <br />. <br />In 1990 the Legal Services Ombudsman was created and their role is to examine complaints about ALL legal professions where the professional body i.e. the law society or bar council does not provide a satisfactory answer. Since 1999 they have been able to order that the solicitor concerned should pay compensation or that the Law Society itself should compensate the client. <br />Due to criticism over the lack of independence in the management of complaints the Legal Services Board was created by the legal services Act 2007 and its role is to have independent oversight of the regulation of the legal profession. This board became fully operational in Jan 2010 and is composed of a chairman and 7-10 members. The majority of which must be non-lawyers. <br />The Legal Services Act 2007 also makes provision for the Office for Legal Complaints. It is composed of a chairman and 6-8 members that are non lawyers. It is located in the West Midlands and staff are drawn from the Law society’s consumer complaints service. <br />COURT ACTION <br />If all else fails, a client can take a solicitor to court. In Griffiths v Dawson (1993) it was made clear that a client can sue the solicitor for negligence out of court work. In this case, the solicitor failed to make the correct application in divorce proceedings against her husband. As a result the plaintiff lost financially and the solicitors were ordered to pay her £21,000 in compensation. In White v Jones (1995) it was made clear that other people affected by the solicitor’s actions may also have the right to sue. A father wanted to make a will leaving £9000 to each of his daughters. He wrote to his solicitors instructing them to draw up a will with this in it. The solicitor delayed doing this when receiving instructions and the man had died before they had drawn up the will. The daughters successfully sued the solicitor for the £9000. In Hall v Simons (2000) it was held that a solicitor presenting a case in court (advocating) can be held liable for negligence (overruling Rondel v Worsley (1969) where it was held that because advocates should be free to do their duty fearlessly and independently they could not be liable)<br />In relation to Barristers, a client cannot sue for breach of contract as no contract with the client except where there is direct access (the barrister receives the brief from the solicitor and so doesn’t enter into a contract with his client). However they can be liable for negligence for advocacy in court (Halls v Simmons). They can be sued for negligence for work outside court Saif Ali. (1980): a barrister had given the wrong advice about who to sue, with the result that the claimant was too late to start proceedings against the right person. <br />Discuss whether the current system for clients to make such complaints is satisfactory [9] <br />PROBLEMS<br />Both professions have complaints procedures run by their own professional bodies (The Law Society for solicitors and The Bar Council for barristers) so they are not seen as independent. It has been argued that the Law Society had conflicting interests between the interest of the solicitor and those of the client complaining. The Clementi review suggested there should be a new complaints body independent of the professions which would deal with complaints from all consumers of legal services. <br />There are considerable delays in dealing with complaints particularly those involving solicitors. The complaints body run by the Law Society was criticised for inefficiency and delay. Even after the Consumer Complaints Service was set up in 2004 it was found that only 68% of investigations were handled satisfactorily compared to 90% handled satisfactorily by the bar council. However the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner is able to set targets for handling complaints and can fine the professional body concerned if the targets are not met. In 2006 the Law Society was fined £250,000 for submitting an inadequate complaints handling plan. This should help to deal with the delays. <br />Problems with regards court action include the clients’ reluctance to start new proceedings, the costs involved, and difficulty in finding another lawyer although the Law Society has a panel. There is also evidence that there are low limits on the amount of compensation which will be paid which do not adequately compensate clients for their actual losses. <br />Legal Services Act 2007<br />Following the recommendations of the Clementi review that there should be an independent legal services board, the Legal Services Act 2007 provides for its creation. Its role is to have independent oversight regulation of the legal profession and its regulators (the law society and bar council). It is composed of a chairman and 7-10 members, the majority of which are NON-lawyers and who are appointed by the Secretary of State. <br />The Board came into being on 1 January 2009 and became fully operational on 1 January 2010. Its overriding mandate is to ensure that regulation in the legal services sector is carried out in the public interest; and that the interests of consumers are placed at the heart of the system.. The Board will also oversee the new organisation being established to handle consumer complaints about lawyers, the office for legal complaints. This office is composed of a chairman and 6-8 members that are non lawyers. It is located in the West Midlands and staff are drawn from the Law societies consumer complaints service. <br />With these changes in mind, the independence of the handling of complaints should be much improved. There are however still weaknesses that have not been addressed. Only time will tell if the newly formed board will improve the system for clients to make complaints against the legal profession. <br />