24 hour helpline:
When the Legal Ombudsman’s (LeO) office opened in October 2010, a commitment was made to review the Scheme Rules within 18 months and, accordingly, a twelve-week consultation period ran from 26th March to 18thJune 2012.
Having read many of the published responses to the consultation, as well as numerous discussions on the topic, it appears that the focal points of the debate are, predictably, consumer-focused, namely the level of compensation that can be awarded by LeO and the proposal to allow third parties to complain to LeO. However, application of the Scheme Rules carries equally significant implications for solicitors and many seem to have overlooked an inconsistency which, unless addressed, could establish dangerous precedents.
The Draft Scheme Rules propose to alter paragraph 2.10 to allow LeO to exercise discretion with regard to the classification of successor practices, with the effect that even if the respondent to a complaint is a successor practice for the purposes of the Scheme Rules, LeO may disallow the complaint if it decides that it is not ‘fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case’.
Whilst this amendment has been justified on the basis that it minimises the risk of potential injustices, it is submitted that affording LeO such discretion is dangerous for the following reasons:
Furthermore, this inconsistency has potentially drastic consequences for the predator, who will invariably expend precious management time and also risk financial and reputational damage investigating and responding to allegations that should have been handled by the target’s insurers. Furthermore, it seems illogical and unfair that a predator could identify a target, conduct extensive due diligence, seek assurances from the insurer that it will not be regarded as a successor practice and finally complete the acquisition, only to be faced with issues that – rather than being regarded as complaints of standard of service – should be dealt with under the target’s run-off cover. Given that the categories of complaints that LeO is willing to consider extend to acts or omissions that ordinarily would form the basis for a cause of action in a negligence claim, the distinction between complaints over standard of service and negligence claims is becoming blurred, creating – for the purposes of the Scheme Rules – many more successor practicesin the process. In addition, if the proposed extension of the time limit for making complaints to six years from the event or three years from knowledge of the event is ratified, the risk that predators will be affected by this risk will be heightened.
In a legal marketplace currently pre-occupied with the possibility of an imminent explosion of M&A activity, it is asserted that a continuation of the application of the Scheme Rules will stifle entrepreneurial behavior and create significantly more injustices than those alluded to in LeO’s Draft Scheme Rules.
LBS Legal responded to the consultation and we hope that LeO will consider our comments.
Client Relationship Manager
T: 0113 385 4483
M: 07432 695 289
The Law Society has issued a practice note about the risks to solicitors posed by this new legislation, which came into force on 30 September.
The SRA has urged all practices to check HM Treasury’s consolidated list of asset freeze targets, which lists designated persons subject to financial sanction under EU or UK legislation.
The practising certificate renewal period opened on Monday 2 October.
Sign up for our newsletter
and join our mailing list.
Please click the button to accept our cookies. If you continue to use the site, we'll assume you are happy to accept the cookies anyway.